The Encyclopedia

The Influence of Advertising on Modern Culture

Thu, 02 Jul 2009 04:03:03 +0000

Advertising’s Influence on Our Culture

Corporate advertising in this modern age of instant communication plays a hefty role in influencing our culture by molding the minds of its viewers. As advertising becomes increasingly intrusive into nearly every aspect of our lives, the impact of the industry on consumers can only increase. The messages have become more controversial, and critics of the current advertising industry have started to speak out with staggering ferocity. “There's an effort to hang an ad in front of our eyes at every waking moment of the day and night,” says Gary Ruskin “Americans are sick of it.” (Marshall) Advertising has invaded email, highways, telephone, even your doorstep. In places where advertising has been it’s become more and more invasive. TV viewers now see nearly a full hour of advertisements during a typical night of primetime broadcasts. Today’s advertising critics are operating in an environment some are calling the “fragmenting of America” --a period when economic, social and technological trends are prompting Americans to emphasize their differences rather than nurture their similarities. (Clark) In many cases the emphasis of differences can be considered the main change in cultural values that modern day advertising has either spawned or at least proliferated through the years. Advertising is intent on turning our values toward our differences and carrying pride in those differences instead of our similarities as human beings. Advertising has reduced our culture to materialistic hopes and dreams instead of the morals that mankind has treasured since the dawn of his existence. The intrusiveness of weaving advertising into our private lives has established a strong foothold and is affecting our cultural values.

The essential goal of advertising is to convince the consumer that he or she would have a better life or would be better off with the advertised product. Advertisers are constantly reinforcing the fact that we are flawed and we are expected to be better. Of course they also tell us the only way we can reach the level of beauty, intelligence, or some other value is through the use of their product. For example, with the “Give your hair a Boost!” ad, it is obviously counting on the woman with gorgeous hair who fills up the entire ad and is used to make you wonder if your hair is good enough. (“Fruit Kicks”) The text in the ad is minimal and that which is there is very weak in arguing for this product’s superiority. The advertiser’s main hope is when you go to buy personal hygiene products, you will remember the beauty of the woman and the healthiness of her hair. (“Fruit Kicks”) They are confident their target audience will transfer feelings they get from this woman’s appearance toward the product and will end up purchasing it. Hence advertising has been able to persuade buyers into decisions without engaging the rational portions of their brains. This technique has been able to eliminate one thing humans consider important, our intelligence and ability to reason.

In recent years advertising has really begun to invade our lives in newspapers, streets, the radio, television, internet, buses, trains, planes, clothes and in many other places. In many cases you can’t even use a public restroom without finding a print ad right in front of your face. One technique commonly used by the advertising industry is that of trust. Companies will donate to local services or help with a community park to prove to their customers that they are ethical and can be trusted. For instance the Development Bank of Southern Africa print ad states that they’ve provided technical assistance with the infrastructure needs of their biggest soccer tournaments ever. They provide public transport, accommodation, security, as well as medical emergency and venue training services. (“Soon we’ll all Score”) The donations provided to the community while hosting a local event are showing potential customers that Development Bank of Southern Africa is a principled establishment and is worthy of the public’s trust. At almost every moment of everyday, corporations are attempting to shape our thoughts and actions into success. Even when we do not realize it, the advertising industry is competing for our attention. Advertisements have become so obnoxious; many groups have begun to take action against it because of interference with their daily lives and fears that the effect the industry is having on our culture.

Advertisers are not only fighting to get our attention, to make us feel inferior, but also are working to establish that being different, being your own person is a wonderful thing. This is a point that can easily go with many different ads in showing that if you have or use a certain product you will be different, and inherently better than others because you have what they do not. A Zune print ad that I found for example, is all about standing out and being the outlier. As many people well know, Ipods have and presently do dominate the MP3 player market. Microsoft has recently set out to change that with the release of their Zune MP3 player line. All their ads are about being a rebel stepping away from the crowd and going for something different. (“Zune”) The ad’s style is retro, in small text it lists some technical specifications for those who are interested, but mainly the ad wishes to bypass our rational brains and let us just focus on how beautiful the product is. The Zune and Ipods are very similar when you compare them to a wide range of MP3 players, but Zune hopes to drive home what many advertisers have, telling people to be different and to value distinctions between yourself and others, instead of our similarities as human beings.

Many people find it scary to realize what the impact advertising continues to have on our quickly changing Western culture, and many have begun to stand out on the prevalence of ads and the content of many. People have grown sick of advertisements and countless products appearing in front of them twenty-four seven in a most annoying fashion. People may be frightened and oppose it, but I believe as long as we have a materialistic consumer market in the form that we do now advertising will always be rampant and will exhibit our cultural values as well as shape them into values that would benefit such corporations. The fragmenting of America is a grand testament to the effect of advertising; in many cases advertisers have forced us to accept the idea that people value material possessions more than objects of trust and friendship. Looking ahead it seems as though there will be a battle waged between corporations and the ideals they endeavor to install in us and between people who want to keep the cultural values determined by the people that are the culture.

Structural Analysis of

Thu, 02 Jul 2009 03:53:19 +0000

Julius Caesar – Structural Analysis

The Shakespearean play, Julius Caesar, tells of the dramatic assassination of the most powerful man in the Roman Empire and the wave of chaos that followed. Though this literary work is not an epic poem, it shares many structural similarities with epic poetry. These structural features are found in Tragedies throughout literature and are present in Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar. Tragedies feature characteristics such as unity of action, catharsis, tragedy, scene of suffering, hamartia in the protagonist, hubris, peripteia, and anagnorisis. These features define what tragedy is and allow for the poetic art to have an internal framework. The poetic art was described by Aristotle as a spiritual moment represented in concrete artistic form. That poetry attempts to take abstract and intangible concepts, and force them into a physical state that allows for interpretation and thought concerning these ideas. Through analysis of the structural features of the story, we do not simply gain a much deeper understanding of the plot. We also gain the ability to look closely and derive the themes that are hidden; puzzled together by the plot itself and the relationships of the characters in the story.

Unity of action makes Julius Caesar a clear story where you are never taken back and forth through time and places. The action in the story is ordered, one thing happens at a time and the cause is usually easily identified. The action is also continuous, there is always something happening that is moving the story to the climax and after that point, toward the restoration of the natural order. There is a clear beginning, the conspirators winning over Brutus and then killing Caesar; a middle, Brutus speaking to the people, Antony infuriating the Romans against the conspirators, and the fleeing of Brutus and Cassius; and an end, the fighting of Brutus and Cassius as well as the final battle between Antony and Octavius against Brutus and Cassius. In addition to unity of action is catharsis which deals with how the events of the story inspire pity and terror in the viewers. This is done through vicarious participation, even though the tragic events of the story are not happening to the viewers, the viewers begin to develop emotions for the characters and find sympathy for them in their suffering. The viewers for instance may feel pity for Brutus in his defeat and death; for he was a valiant Roman and strived to do what he thought would be best for his country. But this vicarious participation also allows the viewers to learn a lesson without themselves having to suffer through any misfortune. In the case of Julius Caesar, the viewers learn to think carefully of the consequences of your actions and to not have so much confidence in the character of your potential enemies.

Julius Caesar is indeed a tragedy and therefore it contains the aspects that make a literary work a tragedy. Firstly there are prosperous and renowned protagonists who undergo a reversal of fortune and a fall from greatness. In Julius Caesar, these prosperous protagonists are the conspirators and chief among them, Cassius and Brutus. Their reversal of fortune and fall from greatness occurred from the point at which Brutus had the people calling on him to be the next Caesar. A few moments later Mark Antony has the Romans enraged and searching out to find and kill all the conspirators. Later after Brutus and Cassius flee from Rome they are then defeated soundly in battle by Octavius and Mark Antony. The scene of tragedy in Julius Caesar is the scene where Caesar is killed. It is from that scene on that a wave of chaos begins to determine the plot for the rest of the play.

Cassius and Brutus’ fall from power brings us to hamartia which belongs to Brutus in the form of trusting those who may be his enemies. In the story his fatal flaw was in trusting Antony. The other conspirators were weary of him, but Brutus did not seek a river of blood and therefore spared Antony’s life. It is because of this that Antony was able to enrage the Romans against the conspirators and to drive Brutus and Cassius out of Rome. Hubris, in this play lies equally throughout all of the conspirators. They thought that they could get away scot-free messing up the natural order by killing the man at the top. Peripteia is definitely present in the play after Antony gives his speech to the Romans and the conspirators are no longer in control. Their lives progressively got worse from the moment they lost control of the situation. In the end they met with death to complete their fall from power. Lastly there is anagnorisis. Brutus and Cassius both realize in the final battle the true nature of their situation. They realize that there is no chance they will find their way back into power or back into Rome. It is this realization that drives both of them to suicide. They finally acknowledged their fatal flaw, and that the mistake that brought peripteia upon them was already made, and that events could no longer be reversed. They accepted their fate and departed from the living.

Whether or not Shakespeare intended Julius Caesar to have the many qualities and structural aspects of tragic poetry they are present throughout this work. Julius Caesar is one of Shakespeare’s tragic plays, and his tragedies and tragic poetry share many similarities. Unity of action, catharsis, tragedy, and a scene of suffering are all found in Julius Caesar. Identifying these properties in the story allows us to unlock the purpose of each turn in the plot and what attitudes or emotions Shakespeare was trying to give his audience. Whatever the reasons it is quite clear that the vicarious experience of reading the play presents us with the lesson to always be cautious and be careful of who we trust.

Law vs. Morality

Thu, 02 Jul 2009 03:51:51 +0000

Antigone – Law vs. Morality

In many cases there is a choice that must be made between law or order and what is the right thing to do. Antigone is the story of the daughter and sister of Oedipus who was conceived through incestuous love and fathered by a disgraced man, and a mother who later committed suicide. Then in one single blow her two brothers kill each striking a fatal blow to the other. Creon, now the king of Thebes decides to bury one brother and leave the other to rot and be eaten by the dogs and crows. He goes so far as to outlaw anyone to give him proper burials rights on the penalty of death. Antigone however cannot bear to see her brother treated in such a manner. She decides that she will go and give her brother a proper burial even after her sister, Isemene refuses to help her, terrified of the consequence (death by stone). This predicament leaves us with the general question; which is of greater value? The order that is attained through law, or doing what you think is the right thing to do regardless of the consequences to yourself and others? It is better to take the morally right action in general even if it is against the law, but one must be aware of the hypothetical consequences of these actions even if it is the right thing to do.

There are certain situations when the laws, even when drafted by the people or the majority still contradict generally accepted moral principles. Still, everyone has their opinion of “the right thing” and these opinions can be wildly different. The result is a tough decision between consistency and order and doing what is right. From this we must try to determine which is the right choice, not only in Antigone’s case, but also in the situations we may face in our lives. Some might think that one must always obey the law and that maintaining order is the most important, others would advocate always doing what is right, and still others would deem it situational.
Kolberg’s moral theories would put Antigone is the highest class, post-conventional at a stage 5 or 6. This is because Antigone does what is morally right in spite of the consequence of death. Whether this was a wise or foolish move, it shows that she is acting in a selfless or careless manner. She states before committing the crime, “I shall lie, beloved, with my beloved brother, having committed a pious crime, since the time I must please those below is far longer than the time I must please those here above.” (65) Being at the higher moral stage simply means that Antigone values the welfare of others as much or more than her own well being. This is partly why Antigone is considered the first heroine of western literature and a model for standing up to the law. Antigone’s value of morality most likely played into her decision as well as most of her life having been stripped from her beforehand.

Many leading intellectuals would say that doing what is morally right despite what the law says is the way to go. This is portrayed through the actions of people like Martin Luther King Jr. who knew that the law was wrong and stood up for what is right. In a sense this is the same goal that Antigone fought toward. Her brother, although he had committed crimes against the city of Thebes, was still a human being and deserved to be treated as such. The law is made by man and anything created by man is bound to have imperfections. This is especially true when the law of the land is drafted by a single person with absolute authority. It is through this logic that Antigone’s decision to give her brother proper burial rights was the right one. However this decision eventually put Antigone in a situation where she took her own life and by doing so took the lives of her to-be husband Haemon and his mother through suicide while in their grief.

Morality has a lot to do with empathy, if empathy in itself does not in fact fully define what morality is. Living above the law is necessary to do what is right for our neighbors, not just for oneself. A post-conventional lifestyle involves being selfless and caring about others as well as attempting to define moral laws. Antigone’s decision seems to be one that would be made by a person at the post-conventional or at least conventional level. The decision was the correct one; it is a shame that the consequences of her actions were so great. It is better to act for the greater good rather than blindly follow the law, but it is vital that one remains constantly aware of the repercussions of each and every action they take.

Bad Company Review

Sat, 25 Apr 2009 02:50:43 +0000

In all honesty, the first thing that drew my to Bad Company was the smiley face on the hand grenade. I know it sounds somewhat silly, but it's the truth and I am happy that this little grenade chose me. Now, in Bad Company you play Preston Marlower, who has just been transferred to B Company, codename Bad Company. You join Sweetwater, Haggard and Sergeant Redford in somewhat of an adventure. You start off being almost thrown into battle, having to defeat a small army of Russians and obiliterate a town or two on the way. But B Company stumble upon something very precious, something very sought after - it turns out that the Russians are in affiliation with the Mercenaries, their leader being the Legionnaire, and the Mercenaries are a group of ruthless killers. A group of ruthless killers that always pay in gold bars. You and the rest of B Company realise you've stumbled into something sweet, and you go AWOL - you have good luck and bad luck in your quest for gold, but one thing that can be almost guaranteed is that you're going to leave a path of absolute destruction.

It was a little hard for me to grasp the controls of Bad Company when I started playing, as they do slightly differ from conventional video game controls that I'm used to. Nevertheless I picked it up quickly, and was aboslutely overjoyed to discover the level of absolute destuction you can cause. You have 5 basic classes of guns - Assault Rifles, Shotguns, Sniper Rifles, Light Machine Guns (LMG) and Sub Machine Guns (SMG) - each class has a plethora of different weapons, and there are extras ranging from mortar strikes and grenades to laser designators and a rocket launcher. With you always is an auto injector, to help restore you health - but don't get too worked up, as there is a recharge time. Now, back to the destruction. You can literally rip a building down to it's foundations, which is something that most First Person Shooter games I'm aware of lack. You can blow away the cover of your enemies, forcing them to either retreat or be a sitting duck out in the open. The vehicles that you can have under your command are cajunga - you can have golf buggies, dune buggies, tanks and even helicopters at your disposal, so the possibilities of the havok you can introduce are endless.

Visual: Visually, Bad Company is great. The terrains and detail of the people that you encounter are definitely having lots of thought put into them, and it really shows you how much video game graphics have progressed over the last 10 years. The explosions, though, aren't too special. When you lob a grenade at a wall, it seems like the size of the hole never changes, and the explosions themselves aren't as spectacular as I would have liked. Despite what has been said, there are other parts of how Bad Company looks that brings it to being about average, but overall it's acceptable and looks great. 84/100

Audio: The sounds of Bad Company...ahhhh. You'll hear your squad members make comments during battle, you'll be hearing the cries and screams of your enemies, their commands to each other and you will hear the explosions more than you will see them. The gunshots seem so real, and the audio for Bad Company takes a different approach to that of many other games I have played. The sounds of Bad Company are going to be stuck in your memory, and they'll make you want to turn up the volume to soak it all in. 92/100

Gameplay: The controls of Bad Company, like I mentioned, seem to take a different approach to what I am familiar with in other games. They do seem a bit tricky at first, but they aren't too difficult to pick up, and then master, once you've been playing the game for a few minutes. Sometimes you'll find it hard to crouch under certain things, you just won't be able to jump that fence, your knife won't come out quick enough and your bullets won't go where you want them to. The AI (Artificial Intelligence, also known as your enemies) are almost completely unrealistic and will either pop out of places that will frustrate you or run into danger so foolishly. Nevertheless, the vehicles are easy to control (in most instances), and blowing your way through a couple of houses has never been so easy or enjoyable. 89/100

Multiplayer: I didn't know what to expect when I decided to play online for Bad Company. I was faced with the idea of 'Gold Rush', though. Basically, you have your Attackers and Defenders. The Defenders have to protect the gold crates, and the Attackers have to destroy them. The Defenders win if they destroy all of the attackers reinforcements, and the Attackers win by advancing through the 3 or 4 bases of the enemy, destroying the 2 gold crates at each base - either by planting a charge, or blowing the living daylights out of it. Put simply, I found Bad Company's online play to be...more or less addictive. You will strive to rank up, and you will long for the online achievements. Dogtags can be earned by knifing someone, and you get extra points depending on your victim's rank - and trust me, getting your knife out will never be so much fun. You have several maps to choose from, all of which are ridiculously large, and you can download 2 more for free. The Conquest game mode is also available for free download, but it seems to be based on more of a Capture the Flag concept. 92/100

Achievements: Battlefield: Bad Company presents to you a list of 50 achievements, varying from 15G to the odd 30G achievement. The list varies, and it has a good balance between online and offline achievements - getting the full 1000 will be no walk in the park. One thing that drastically reduces the score here is that the difficulty achievements (Normal and Hard) are not stackable, so you'll have to run through the campaign twice! 41/100

I rarely do game reviews, and I don't think I'm too good, so tell me what you think!

Myspace Survey #1

Sun, 04 Jan 2009 03:51:21 +0000

If you're bored and on Myspace, and you like filling out surveys, here's a new survey you can fill out! Made by me!

Quote

Where were you born?

Where were you raised?

Where did you spend most of your days?

What did you do outside of the school?

Did you know a couple of guys?

Were they up to no good?

Causing trouble in your neighborhood?

Did you get in a fight?

Who got scared?

What did they say?

Computer Terminology Facts

Wed, 13 Aug 2008 18:47:56 +0000

What is USB?
What is a Flash Drive?
What is plug-and-play?
What is hot-swapping?
What is WiFi?
What is Bluetooth?
What is a LAN?
What is a WAN?

What is USB?
Just about every computer that you buy today comes with one or more USB or Universal Serial Bus ports on the back, which support data transfer rates up to 12Mbps(Megabits per second). These USB connectors let you attach up to 127 peripheral devices on each port such as mice, modems, keyboards and printers to your computer quickly and easily. It also supports plug-and-play and hot-swapping or plugging.

A few computer manufacturers first began including support for USB back in 1996, but it wasn’t until the release of the best-selling iMac in 1998 that USB became widespread. It is eventually expected to replace the older parallel and serial ports.

USB ports now come in 2 versions, 1.0 and the newer 2.0, which is backwards compatible with 1.0. That means the older version 1.0 will work with the newer version 2.0. You can also connect USB 2.0 devices to 1.0 ports but they will only function at the older standard speeds.

What is a Flash Drive?
A flash drive is a small, portable flash memory card that plugs into a computer’s USB port and functions as a portable hard drive with up to 2GB of storage capacity. They are small enough to be carried in a pocket and can plug into any computer with a USB drive. They are more durable than an external hard drive because they do not contain any internal moving parts. They are also called pen drives, key drives or simply USB drives.

What is Plug and Play?
Plug and Play (PnP) is a capability developed by Microsoft for its Windows 95 and later operating systems that gives users the ability to plug a device into a computer and have the computer recognize that the device is there. The user doesn't have to tell the computer. In many earlier computer systems, the user was required to explicitly tell the operating system when a new device had been added by setting DIP switches, jumpers, and other configuration elements. Microsoft made Plug and Play a selling point for its Windows operating systems. A similar capability had long been built into Macintosh computers.

With Microsoft's participation, Plug and Play has now been replaced by an open, industry standard, Universal Plug and Play (UPnP), which uses Internet protocols for seamless device plug-in.

What is hot swapping?
Hot swapping is the ability to remove and replace components of a computer while it is operating. Once the appropriate software is installed on the computer, one can plug and unplug the device without rebooting. An example of this is the Universal Serial Bus (USB) that allows a user to add or remove peripheral devices such as a mouse, keyboard, or printer.

What is WiFi?
WiFi is the wireless way to handle networking. It is also known as 802.11 networking and wireless networking. The big advantage of WiFi is its simplicity. You can connect computers anywhere in your home or office on a Wireless LAN without the need for wires, with or without a wireless router and WiFi network cards. The computers connect to the network using radio signals, and they can be up to 100 feet or so apart.

What is Bluetooth?
Bluetooth is a new industrial specification for wireless personal area networks (PANs). It is the latest development in wireless technology and provides a way to connect and exchange information between devices like personal digital assistants (PDAs), mobile phones, laptops, PCs, printers and digital cameras via a secure, low-cost, globally available short range radio frequency. It is designed for low power consumption, using radio frequencies in the 2.45 GHz range to transmit information over short distances of generally 33 feet (10 meters) or less. By embedding a Bluetooth chip and receiver into products, cables that would normally carry the signal can be eliminated.

What is a LAN?
A LAN is a Local Area Network. A computer network that spans a relatively small geographical area such as in an office or at home, which share the same resources eg. printers, file servers and/or internet connections through ethernet cables or WIFI.

What is a WAN?
A WAN is a Wide Area Network. A computer network that spans a relatively large geographical area. Typically, a WAN consists of two or more local-area networks (LANs). Computers connected to a wide-area network are often connected through public networks, such as the telephone system. They can also be connected through leased lines or satellites. The largest WAN in

The Communist Democracy

Wed, 13 Aug 2008 11:23:23 +0000

Alright. Now, I was originally going to place this in The Library, but for some odd reason I'm not able to start up a topic there, so, next best thing! Anyway.

This is NOT a treatise. PLEASE do not treat it like one. Treat it like it is: A simple proposition for a new form of government. Nothing more, nothing less. Now then.

Before I give the structure of this thing, I'd like to start by listing problems I've noticed with governments in the past.

-One of the main problems: Size of government. Too many people in government, and it becomes slow and sluggish; as in a hulking giant. Too small, and too few people are left with too much power; as in a dictatorship. To remedy this, it is necessary to consider the idea of a "happy medium" range, where effectiveness and efficiency both reach a peak. Also, it is necessary to consider that actions can be taken to dampen the harm of large/small sizes, or at least act as effective fail-safes.

-Another large problem: How much the government interferes with peoples' lives. Now to be fair, no government can do much of anything without tripping over something in someone's living room, but of course you are all aware of the constant, eternal disagreement between full governmental help, or little to none of it. Addressing this problem requires attention paid to the idea of a system where governmental interference is more or less regulated by each individual citizen; that is to say, how much you want to deal with the government, and vice versa.

A few more core problems/ideas:

-Any type of government can fail, if those within allow it.

-Revolution is not as harmful as many may think; in fact, it is a necessary part of a government's growth process; I cite "controlled burning" of forests as proof of this idea.

-A government is like a human in that it grows and matures, but is also very different in the aspect, in that its growth is never-ending.

-Evolution of government is necessary in a continuously-changing world. Adaptation, as well as anticipation, is key.

-A rigid foundation makes for a lasting rule: A house built upon shifting sands will surely sink. Build a government upon a set of rules that never change, and at the very least, people will respect it.

-Money itself is not the root of all evil; the love of money is. Instead of placing stress on currency, consider the idea that it may be better to place emphasis on something else. One's own ideas, for example. It is no secret, after all, that ideas are a currency anyone can be wealthy with.

-Faith in one's nation is of course beneficial to its success. Arrogance, however, can only lead to harmful things, such as xenophobia or ethnocentrism.

-Last idea: All people have a use, no matter what their circumstances may be.

Alright, that's enough of that.

THE COMMUNIST DEMOCRACY.

Through the course of all this, I wish the audience to keep in mind the idea of "Government as Protectorate of its People." Also, I want the audience to know that this government will be built upon a rigid set of rules that will never change. It will always have a solid Constitution, outlining the general goal of all its' actions; as in a declaration of underlying reasons.

STRUCTURE.

The Communist Democracy, as according to me, will consist of 3 "True" Branches, 1 "False" Branch.

1st: The Administrative Branch: The Courts.

The Administrative Branch will contain 3 sets of Tribunals; each Judge therein labeled an "Archon." The label is, of course, alluding to the same number of magistrates of ancient Athens.

-When there is a court case to be heard, one of these Tribunals will be the ears to hear it. They will be entrusted with the authority to rule according to the Constitution in effect at the time (yes, I do favour the idea of a changing Constitution. I'll address this in due time).

-Archons will be voted on, as per the glories of Democracy. Above all else, the people must have their say in who rules them, who will translate the current Constitution, and how. They will more or less act like the US Judicial Branch.

2nd: The Adaptive Branch: The Bureau of All Affairs.

The Adaptive Branch is mainly responsible for dealing with changes to the government, from internal to external affairs. It also makes decisions necessary for the government's survival, including declarations of war, cease-fire, and peace, to declaring a state of emergency, and everything in between. Note that like the 1st Branch, this one will also contain elected officials.

-The Adaptive Branch is subject to the rule of The Administrative Branch. At various periods, The Administrative Branch will conduct an analysis of The Adaptive Branch's conduct thus far. Matters will be dealt with if they conflict with the current Constitution (note, these periodic analyses will NOT be conducted according to a set schedule, so as to preserve randomness).

-At set periods of time (most likely bi-weekly or weekly), the Adaptive Branch will vote on and send a special delegation headed by one or two individuals (two will be maximum) to discuss matters with the Tribunals. These matters will consist of what The Adaptive Branch intends to do, what it is currently doing, and/or what it hopes to achieve in the future. The one/two heads of the special delegation will also be responsible for speaking to The Citizen's Audience.

3rd: The Free Branch: The Citizen's Audience.

This is where the Tribunals and Special Delegation will go to in order to hear what the common folk think of how things are going. Be the matters good or bad, they will be heard in the Audience. Sessions of the Citizen's Audience will be held on a set schedule, with the further ability to hold emergency meetings.

-Any matter concerning how things are going with the government or the world may be discussed and dealt with. Note that transparency on the part of the other two branches will be vital here.

-The Citizen's Audience will be where ordinary people will bring up issues that can even concern why a government member should be ousted from office. Note that if two whole branches vote to oust a government member out of office, whoever it is is pretty much SOL, and they are replaced. Even if not, if the Citizen's Audience agrees to get them out, they go under investigation, and are set before a Tribunal. There, they will be required to answer for their actions.

-When something drastic happens, disaster for example, the head(s) of the Adaptive's special delegation call an emergency Citizen's Audience meeting, in which announcements may be made, concerning intentions, chosen courses of action, etc.

Ugh...so much more to write yet! And unfortunately I need to quit now. Started at around 1 am, now it's almost 430! Blah, sorry everyone! I'll get back to it tomorrow. Don't worry, there's still a lot more vital stuff to cover...

Need...sleep.
Do svyazi!

Richard Dawkins's â€˜Ultimate Boeing 747′

Thu, 24 Jul 2008 01:05:20 +0000

Richard Dawkinsâ€™s â€˜Ultimate Boeing 747′

Originally posted here

Perhaps one of the vocal and outspoken atheists out there today is Richard Dawkins, who is an evolutionary biologist and a professor at the University of Oxford. Dawkins, along with Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, and Daniel Dennet, are the premier 'evangelists for atheism'. In his book entitled The God Delusion, Dawkins makes what he calls the 'Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit' [1]. Dawkins's basic argument goes like this:

Quote

â€¦the designer hypothesis raises the larger problem of who designed the designer. The whole problem we started out with was the problem of explaining statistical improbability. It is obviously no solution to postulate something even more improbably. We need a 'crane' not a 'skyhook', for only a crane can do the business of working up gradually and plausibly from simplicity to otherwise improbably complexity.

Dawkins's argument is basically "If everything is so complex, then God must be even more complex" and thus appealing to God as a prime mover ultimately begs the question of 'who designed the designer.' As convincing as it sounds, there are a few problems with this argument.

First, the argument is a category mistake. It attributes a property to a being which couldn't possibly hold that property. It's like asking 'what does the color blue smell like?' Obviously, colors don't have smells. Now how could Dawkins possibly attribute the property of complexity to God? How can God be complex? God isn't a physical being. God doesn't have parts. How can God be complex if God has no parts at all? Dawkins confuses an immaterial being with a material being. Material beings can hold the property of complexity, but immaterial beings cannot. God has no parts at all. So instead of God being complex, God is rather quite simple.

As if this didn't deal a harsh blow to Dawkins's argument already, his argument backfires because the argument can be used against him. Whatever Dawkins wants to posit as his first cause, I can easily rebut by saying 'well what caused that?' Just because something is simple or complex does not mean that it can go by without a cause. Clearly if we use the logic behind this argument, both sides ultimately get nowhere in terms of explaining things. It becomes clear that "One cannot go on giving reductive explanations forever." [2]

When you think about it, there has to be a first cause which is itself, uncaused. Giving an explanation and refuting it by saying "what caused that" ad infinitum gets both sides nowhere. In a recent FamilyLife Today broadcast that I was listening to, the philosopher J. P. Moreland was asked the question 'who made God?' Moreland answered this question by using an excellent example using a typewriter. The following is Moreland's analogy taken from the broadcast transcript:

Quote

Suppose that I went to you and said, "Could I borrow a typewriter?" And you said, "Absolutely. I don't own one, but let me borrow one, and I'll give it to you." So you go to someone and say, "I'd like to loan a typewriter to my friend. Could I borrow one from you?" And the person says, "Absolutely. Unfortunately, I don't own a typewriter. Let me go get one."

Well, if you keep doing that, then no one is going to get a typewriter, because everyone is a borrowing lender that has to get a typewriter first. Eventually, you're going to have to stop with somebody who just has a typewriter who doesn't have to borrow it first.

Now, the same thing is true for existing. If I have to be given existence by something before I can give existence to my children, whatever gave existence to me â€“ if it had to get existence from something else, you eventually have to stop with something that just has a typewriter â€“ that just exists and doesn't come from anywhere. [3]

Ultimately, we see that the chain of causation has to end somewhere, and that somewhere is God. Going by Dawkins's argument, both sides utterly fail to explain anything in terms of our origins. This is what happens when you let a biologist play philosopher.

_________________________

Endnotes

[1] - Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin. 2006) PP: 137-189
[2] - Victor Reppert, C. S. Lewis's Dangerous Idea: In Defense of the Argument from Reason (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003) PP: 122
[3] - http://www.familylife.com/site/apps/nlnet/...&ct=5393773

Logic as Evidence for God

Sun, 22 Jun 2008 02:18:24 +0000

I was too lazy to do the formatting, so some parts are probably messed up. There's a PDF though that's available at this link.

Logic as Evidence for God
Timothy H.

Logic is something that we use everyday, yet very few of us notice that logic can be used as a powerful proof for the existence of God. Such proofs are called transcendental arguments. They are seldom employed in traditional apologetics but are heavily used in presuppositional and Reformed apologetics. [1] The argument attempts to prove God's existence by using the first principles. There are three key first principles of logic. These being the law of identity, the law of non-contradiction, and the law of excluded middle. A first principle is defined as “...the foundation of knowledge. Without them nothing could be known.” [2] It is impossible to deny these laws, as any counterexample would beg the question and use the law itself. Thus, they are self-evidently true. Very briefly, these laws of logic are as follows:

Law of identity – P is P, not some other entity, say Q
Law of non-contradiction – P cannot be P and not P
Law of excluded middle - A proposition is either true or false, there is no middle ground

Now as for the argument, let us use the version constructed by Sean Choi:

(TAG1) LOGIC.
(TAG2) It is necessary that: if God does not exist, then not-LOGIC
(TAG3) So, God exists. [3]

These first principles are unchanging, immaterial, and transcendent entities. The first principles do not share any physical characteristics – they are not located anywhere, weigh anything, or have any dimensions. They are unchanging truths, one cannot manipulate the law of non-contradiction. They are the starting assumptions of knowledge and rationality, they cannot be changed. They are not cultural conventions.

How might the atheist, materialist, and naturalist go about explaining how these laws came into being? It does not seem reasonable to suppose that these laws can be the byproducts of nature. How can immaterial things which are not extended in space and time be the product of natural processes? This is the equivalent of getting something from nothing. Material things cannot yield immaterial things. The atheistic worldview seems unable to justify the existence of such absolutes.

Assuming that the atheist wants to posit a natural reason for these laws, how did our universe, which is purely random and blind, produce these laws of logic? And if they did, should we have any justification in believing that they are true? One would not trust a computer printout from a computer which had been programmed by the laws of nature. [4] C. S. Lewis remarked:

It is only when you are asked to believe in Reason coming from non-reason that you must cry Halt, for, if you don't, all thought is discredited. It is therefore obvious that sooner or later you must admit a Reason which exists absolutely on its own. [5]

For the theist however, the first principles reflect both the thinking of an unchanging, immaterial, and transcendent God. Moreover, by definition logic is conceptual, it is a process of the mind. Physical objects don't have the capacity to engage in logic or use reasoning. Hence, being a process of the mind, they must have originated from a mind greater than ours. Such a mind must be unchanging, immaterial, and transcendent – a description perfectly fits the definition of God. Hence we see that the theist has no problem accounting for the origin of the first principles. Moreover, the first principles fit perfectly into the theistic framework, like a key goes into a lock with a perfect fit.

With this in mind, we can construct an argument against atheism that takes the form of a modus ponens:

*If logical first principles exist, then atheism is false
*Logical first principles exist
*Therefore, atheism is false

It's also interesting to note that when the atheists uses logic to refute the existence of God, they are borrowing a concept from the theistic worldview, for the atheistic worldview is unable to explain the origin of logic. Therefore, when an atheist attempts to use any form of logical argument to defeat theism, his argument immediately becomes self-defeating because it presupposes the truth of theism. If any atheist attempts to even argue against God using logic, he stultifies himself.

The atheist however, isn't usually aware of this because it is so obvious that he is oblivious to it. C. S. Lewis gives an example in his book Miracles: A Preliminary Study:

When you are looking at a garden from a room upstairs it is obvious (once you think about it) that you are looking through a window. But if it is the garden that interests you, you may look at it for a long time without thinking of the window....He knew it in (in one sense) so well that (in another sense) he did not know it existed. [6]

Consequently, atheism takes for granted the existence of logical first principles without explaining how they got there in the first place. Thus, to be an atheist and invoke logic when arguing against a theist is to stultify oneself

TANG – The Transcendental Argument of the Non-Existence of God

The transcendental argument for the non-existence of God was proposed by the atheist Dr. Michael Martin in the New Zealand Rationalist & Humanist and can be accessed on the website of the Internet Infidels. [7] Martin argues that if the transcendental argument is true, then God is able to tweak the laws of logic and make logical impossibilities possible – but such a thing is absurd, and hence the transcendental argument is invalid and is better suited for an argument against God. Martin writes:

Thus, God could make the law of noncontradiction false; in other words, God could arrange matters so that a proposition and its negation were true at the same time. But this is absurd. How could God arrange matters so that New Zealand is south of China and that New Zealand is not south of it?

If God could make logical impossibilities possible, then the argument would carry significant weight. But God can't do such a thing. Martin uses a strawman definition of omnipotence. Omnipotence has been traditionally understood as the ability to do that which is logically possible and within God's nature. For example, God cannot lie nor can God change. [8] It is against his nature. Logic itself is part of God's nature (omniscience). Hence, God cannot do that which is logically impossible.

______________________

[1] - Examples include Cornelius Van Til, Greg Bahsen, and Francis Schaeffer
[2] - Norman L. Geisler. The Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapids MI: Baker Academic. 1999) PP: 250
[3] - Norman L. Geisler. and Chad V. Meister (Ed.). (2007). Reasons for Faith: Making A Case for the Christian Faith. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books. PP: 235-236
[4] - There are many versions of this particular argument. Proponents include C. S. Lewis, Victor Reppert, and most recently, Alvin Plantinga
[5] - C. S. Lewis. The Complete C. S. Lewis Signature Classics (New York NY: HarperOne. 2002) PP: 325
[6] - Ibid. PP: 336-337
[7] - http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mic...frame/tang.html
[8] - See http://www.scaeministries.org/stronghold/feb08cPDF.pdf for more information

Military Strategy and Tactics

Tue, 27 May 2008 15:13:29 +0000

I'll be doing a series on this. I'll introduce the concepts in this article, analyze cases that illustrate these in action, show the terms/principles/et cetera necessary to understand the ideas, explain the major works/theories, and try to create a unifying concept.

I really don't know if this'll be interesting to you guys, but I'm doing this at the very least just for my own benefit. I need discipline in school (i learn a fair deal, but I need better grades), and this sort of work will in any case keep me busy partway through the summer. Besides, it's a good way of putting the stuff I've read into an easily accessible summary form, and the practice of doing scholarly academic type works would be a good indication of whether I could continue on in this path or if I should get into something more practical.

So, I will be writing this article today.

Morality, Natural Selection, and Atheism

Sat, 24 May 2008 22:59:03 +0000

Here is an essay that I typed up really quick for my website. Retrieved from here

Morality, Natural Selection, and Atheism

Timothy H.

I was in a dialogue with an atheist today over the subject of morality. The fellow asserted that certain acts such as killing were wrong. He supported this thesis by appealing to an internal guilt feeling that arises when you do something wrong. I agreed perfectly with him; however his view on morality was inconsistent with his atheism. Why? Because in atheism, you have no reason to be moral. If you’re an atheist, then it is more likely you affirm that evolution is true. A very basic tenet of evolution is natural selection. Natural selection is basically “survival of the fittest”. The weak are gradually killed off while the strong live.

We see around us every day acts of selflessness and generosity that even atheists appreciate. Doctors treat the sick, we give up our seat to the elderly, and we help out a friend in need. Generally, we help others out. We appreciate such acts of kindness and respect those who help us out in our times of need. If you're a Christian, you have a good reason to be moral. After all, we should "love our neighbors as ourselves." But if you're an atheist, you have absolutely no reason to be moral. In fact, it would be irrational for an atheist to be moral.

As previously stated, atheists are likely to affirm evolution, and hence natural selection. Natural selection leaves no room for the acts of kindness that we witness everyday. It's every man for himself, the weak will die and the strong will live. We are to do whatever is necessary to ensure our own survival. Acts of kindness are stupid and irrational because they allow the weak to live, thus placing an unnecessary burden on society to maintain them. Doctors shouldn't treat the people because the sick will be weeded out by natural selection. You should cut the elderly person in line because it ensures your survival. It leaves no room for any acts of kindness.

Yet such a position is untenable in my opinion. Imagine if we were ill and paid a visit to our doctor, only to be turned away with "I'm sorry, but the weak deserve to die." This is a slap across the face for many atheists. When we hear of individuals who gave their lives so that others may live, we treat such people as heroes. Yet the atheistic worldview dictates that such people are irrational fools. They should have done whatever is necessary to save themselves, pushing others out of the way or trampling them if necessary. Yet this is not how we respond. Hence, it is very hard (and in my opinion, impossible) to live true to what atheism dictates.

Now don't get me wrong here, atheists can be moral, but they have absolutely no foundation or justification to be moral. I assume that there are many moral atheists out there who do perform acts of kindness and selflessness, but according to their own worldview, they are fools. They shouldn't have helped the elderly man cross the street, instead they should have left him there to be run over by a car because that's what natural selection is -- the weak die and the strong live. Now does the Christian have a justification or foundation to be moral? That is a definite yes. God Himself tells us to love our neighbors as ourselves. We are obliged to perform such acts of kindness because the trait of a Christian is to love the brethren.

However for most atheists, how they act and what their worldview dictates conflicts with each other. They know that they should be moral yet they have no reason to be moral. Well, if their atheism leads to a conclusion that they know isn't true, why not change their atheism? Atheism gives you no reason to be moral, it's even irrational to be moral in atheism. On the other hand, theism gives you a reason to be moral.

____________________________

Â©Copyright 2008 SCAE Ministries

The Date(s) of Authorship for the New Testament Gospels

Fri, 23 May 2008 01:24:46 +0000

Formatting errors may be present. IPB has a different tag system. Read the formatted version here

The Date(s) of Authorship for the New Testament Gospels

Timothy H.

Over the last two centuries, there has been considerable debate over the dates of authorship for the canonical Gospels. Liberal scholars have tried to argue for the latest possible date of authorship (70-170 A.D.) while conservative scholars have tried to argue for the earliest possible date of authorship (50-90 A.D.). What is at stake here is the accuracy of the picture that the canonical Gospels give us about Jesus. We'll get more into that and oral tradition in the next essay. For now, let's stick to the issue of Gospel authorship.

Introduction to Liberal Dating

Traditionally liberal scholars argue for a late date of authorship for the canonical Gospels. These dates have ranged from 70 to 170 A.D. Today the large majority of liberal scholars view the Gospels as have being written from around the years of 70 to 100 A.D. There are however, some scholars who place the date of composition way beyond these dates, into the mid-second century A.D.

Part of what sets liberal dating apart from traditional, conservative dating is its antisupernatural presupposition. Antisupernaturalism (or naturalism) is a philosophical view which holds that nature is all that exists and the supernatural is impossible. It is because of this bias that liberal scholars believe all of the supernatural events that are reported in the Gospels are impossible. It is also because of this presupposition that has caused liberal scholars to argue that the synoptic Gospels couldn't have been written before the fall of Jerusalem because the prophecy in which the fall of Jerusalem is mentioned had to postdate the actual event.

Finally when it comes to the fourth Gospel (the Gospel of John), 19th and 20th century liberal German scholars used to argue that it was written nearing the end of the second century A.D. This is around one entire century after the synoptics were written. Because of this alleged date of late authorship many liberal scholars rejected the traditional apostolic authorship which was associated with John. However this hypothesis has since been largely abandoned and liberal scholars have opted for a late 90-early 100s A.D. date of authorship. The reason why this theory was abandoned will be discussed later on in this essay.

Introduction to Conservative Dating

In contrast to liberal scholars, conservative scholars argue for a relatively early date of authorship for the canonical Gospels. Most conservative scholars today view the Gospels as have being written between the years of 50 to 90 A.D. In recent years however a Spanish Jesuit paleographer named Jose O'Callahan has found and identified manuscript fragments that may push the dates of authorship for the Gospel of Mark to around 50 A.D and perhaps earlier. [1] I however neither endorse or critique O'Callahan's hypothesis, so I won't be discussing it any further than this brief mention.

Unlike their liberal counterparts, conservative scholars do not have an antisupernatural presupposition. Rather conservative scholars view the matter through a supernaturalistic presupposition, which allows for the supernatural. Thus conservative scholars opt for a date of authorship that predates the fall of Jerusalem (70 A.D.) because the prophecy concerning the fall of Jerusalem could very well be valid. Thus conservative scholars use this and other points to argue for a date of authorship that predates the fall of Jerusalem.

Conservatives view the fourth Gospel as have being written from around 60-90 A.D. Evidence found within the Gospel and outside of the Gospel, especially P52 help argue for this. More concerning the authorship of the Gospel of John will be discussed later on in this essay.

How We Date the Gospels

The dating of the canonical Gospels can be a very tricky matter. Scholars usually focus on two types of evidence. They are refereed to as internal evidence and external evidence. Internal evidence refers to the evidence that can be gathered by examine the text itself. External evidence refers to the evidence that can be gathered by looking outside of the text. Mark D. Roberts writes:

First, there is external evidence. This includes the early manuscripts of the Gospels as well as references to them or citations from them in other words of ancient literature.
Second, there is internal evidence. This has to do with what can be discovered about the time of writing from the content of each Gospel. Consider this obvious example. All of the
Gospels identify Pontius Pilate as the Roman governor of Judea during the time of Jesus. Since we know that Pilate governed from about 26 to 37 A.D., the Gospels couldn't have
been written before this time. [2]

External Evidence

We can set limit to the latest date to which the Gospels could be written by taking a look at some writings outside of the Bible. Around 180 A.D., Irenaeus, the bishop of Lyons wrote a work called Against Heresies. In it he mentions all four Gospels and their authors. [3] This passage is alleged to have come from Polycarp, which if true, could argue for an even earlier date of authorship. However the authenticity of this passage is disputed, so I'll stray away from this. From this initial look we can set the latest date to which the Gospels could have been authored to 180 A.D.

Now let's look at some more sources and narrow the latest date down. In 140 A.D., the heretic Marcion compiled his own list of the canon. Contained in his list was the Gospel of Luke (although Marcion edited it to fit his gnostic theology). Thus we can say that the Gospels of Mark and Luke could have been written no later than 140 A.D.

How does the Gospel of Mark tie into this however? Well since Mark was the first Gospel that was written, most scholars, whether they be liberal or conservative, believe that Matthew and Luke used Mark in writing their Gospels because of the close similarity of the first three Gospels. That's why they are called the synoptic Gospels (synoptic means similarity). Matthew and Luke show an enormous dependence on Mark's Gospel, at times having word-for-word parallels. This means Mark was written before Luke, and since we have set the latest possible date of authorship for Luke, Mark must have been written earlier.

Back to what I was saying. We can narrow down this latest possible date of authorship for the three synoptic Gospels even more by examining the church father Polycarp's Epistle to the Philippians. It is estimated to have been written around 110-140 A.D. [4] Although it does not contain the names any of the Gospels, the letter does contain quotations which are very similar to verses from the three synoptic Gospels. [5]

Another source from around the same time aside from Polycarp's Epistle to the Philippians are fragments of the writings of Papias, the bishop of Hierapolis. [6] Fragments of his writings date to 110-140 A.D., which is around the same time period to which Polycarp's writings were dated. [7] Unlike Polycarp's writings, Papias actually names two Gospels, these being Matthew and Mark. [8]

With the evidence we have cited, we can argue that the synoptic Gospels were authored around the late first century A.D. We can say this because we have to factor in the time it took for the Gospels to be copied and the time it took for it to spread around the ancient world.

Textual Evidence

But what of the Gospel of John? You may have noticed that external sources which I mentioned, aside from Irenaeus, did not contain any reference to the Gospel of John. So as far as we know, the earliest mention of the Gospel of John dates to around 180 A.D. So what of the Gospel of John? Did it have a very late date of authorship compared to the other canonical Gospels? You have read earlier that liberal scholars used to believe that the Gospel of John was written in the later half of the second century A.D. They believed that for this very reason, there are no mention of the Gospel of John from any early church figure before Irenaeus. Notice however that I used the words â€œused to believeâ€. Why don't they believe in John's late authorship anymore? Well let's find out.

You probably have noticed now that until now, I have been citing the letters of figures from the early Christian church. But now let's turn to a new type of external evidence. This being the textual evidence. During the 19th and into the early 20th century, liberal German theology dominated the playing field of most European seminaries. It was widely believed that the Gospel of John wasn't written until the latter parts of the second century because it lacked any mention from early church figures prior to that. However over one hundred years in liberal scholarship came crashing down when P52 was discovered at Oxford University in the 1930s.

P52, also known as the John Rylands Papyrus 457, is a fragment of papyrus that contains John 18:31-33, and 37-38. [9] It is dated from around 100-150 A.D. Some scholars have even suggested that it should be dated to around the late 90's A.D. P52 is our oldest dated fragment of the New Testament. Its discovery revolutionized the way scholars viewed the Gospel of John. When scholars compared P52 to other manuscripts, they found that its handwriting style resembled that of Papyrus Fayyum 110, which is a papyri that originated in Middle Egypt. [10] Thus the Gospel of John had already spread to Egypt no later than 150 A.D. Timothy Paul Jones writes:

So, in the early years of the second century A.D. - perhaps even earlier â€“ the Gospel according to John was already in circulation throughout the Roman Empire. What's more, if
the Gospel according to John was already circulating in central Egypt in the late first or early second century, this account of Jesus's life must have been compiled at some point in the
latter half of the first century. [11]

Aside from P52, we have a plethora of textual evidence for the Gospels. Such textual evidence include a wealth of papyri. This includes: P90, P66, P4, P64, P67, P75, P103, P104, P87, P77, P45, P48, P45, and P104. [12] [13] [14] All of these papyri were written before the third century A.D.

We have now established thanks to external evidence that the Gospels could have been written no later than 100 A.D. Unfortunately, external evidence has its limits and this is the earliest to which we can date the Gospels by using external evidence. To date the Gospels even earlier, we must examine the internal evidence found within the Gospels. We now turn our attention toward the internal evidence.

Internal Evidence

The internal evidence which is found in the Gospels helps to argue for a more precise date of authorship, something that external evidence has a hard time doing in this case. I have already argued in the above segment that the Gospels were written no later than 100 A.D., so let's work on from there.

Our key focus will be Jesus's prediction of the fall of Jerusalem that can be found in all of the synoptic Gospels. Liberal scholars take one look at the prophecy made of the fall and immediately slap on a post-fall date of authorship. However this is an uncalled for antisupernatural bias. Gregory Boyd and Paul Rhodes Eddy write:

The absolute rejection of miracles isn't really a conclusion that is based on evidence or on reason â€“ for neither evidence nor reason could warrant such an absolute conclusion. It is,
rather, an assumption â€“ a presupposition of the naturalistic worldview â€“ pure and simple. [15]

They then go on to state:

....A more open-minded, scholarly approach would be to hold that, if all natural explanations become implausible, we should consider explanations that go beyond the natural laws that
describe how the world generally operates.[16]

They then conclude by pointing out this this antisupernatural bias is nothing but circular reasoning:

....This is a clear case of circular reasoning.... These scholars assume that supernatural occurrence don't happen.... But notice, they only conclude this because they presupposed it
at the start.[17]

So then without further ado, let's present the case for the pre-fall authorship of the Gospels. We can argue for a relatively close date of authorship for the synoptic Gospels by looking at the date of authorship for the Acts of the Apostles. Indeed if you find when Acts if written, then it's pretty safe to assume that you can derive a relatively close date for the authorship of the synoptic Gospels. But how exactly does Acts, which is a book detailing early church history, tie into the dating of the synoptic Gospels? J. P. Moreland writes:

According to the four-source theory, Q and Mark predate Matthew and Luke. It should also be kept in mind that Luke and Acts are two parts of the same document; Luke
precedes Acts slightly. This means that if one can date Acts, then Luke would have been written prior to Acts. And since Luke used Matthew and Mark, then Matthew and Mark
are to be dated even earlier. So a key to dating the Gospels is the date assigned to Acts. [18]

Basically, scholars believe that Mark was the first Gospel and that both Matthew and Luke used Mark's Gospel in writing their Gospel. However Luke used both Matthew and Mark's Gospel when he wrote his Gospel. Finally Luke wrote two books, these being his Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles. Luke wrote his Gospel first and Acts second, so Acts is the later of the two. Thus if we find the date of authorship for acts, we can also find the date of authorship for Luke, seeing it was written slightly before Acts. Then we can also find a date of authorship for both Matthew and Mark because Luke used Matthew and Mark as sources in writing his Gospel. Thus it all ties into the date of authorship for Acts.

Although there are many ways to date the synoptic Gospels, perhaps the most common way that is used to date them concerns the prophecy of the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. Mark D. Roberts writes:

The most common arguments for dating the Gospels based on internal evidence refer to the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple in A.D. 70. This was, no doubt, a
cataclysmic event for many early Christians, especially those who continued to think of themselves as Jews. Scholars examine the Gospels for evidence of knowledge â€“ or lack of
knowledge â€“ of the events of A.D. 70. [19]

Aside from the prophecy concerning the fall of Jerusalem, there are several other points that argue a strong case for a date of authorship predating 70 A.D. Remember that Acts is the central point in dating the synoptics. The following list presents a few points that are used to date Acts and assign a pre-70 date of authorship to the synoptics: [20]

*Acts does not mention the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D., this is odd considering that both Luke and Acts revolve around Jerusalem. [21] [22][/li]
*Nero's persecution of the Jews in the middle part of A.D. 60 isn't mentioned. [23] Moreland writes:

Neither the tone of Acts nor the omission of an account of Nero's persecutions can be adequately explained by saying it was an attempt to appease the Roman government. It
was not in the nature of the early church to appease anyone â€“ witness conflicts with Judaism and the Pharisees which are recorded in Luke's writings.[24]

*The Jewish war which broke out in 66 A.D. is not mentioned. If Luke were writing from a post-70 A.D. date, then it's odd as to why he didn't record this, especially since it fulfilled a prophecy made by Jesus in the Olivet Discourse. (the destruction of the temple). [25][/li]
*The deaths of Peter, Paul, and James are not mentioned. [26] [27] Again Moreland writes:

This is also surprising since Acts is quick to record the deaths of Stephen and James the brother of John, leaders in the early church. These omissions are even more surprising when
one realizes that James, Peter, and Paul are the three key figures in Acts. [28]

In relation to the above point, Acts is in the middle of telling us about Paul's trial when the book abruptly ends. A likely explanation for this abrupt ending is that Paul's trial had not yet been concluded and was still underway. Daniel B. Wallace, a renowned New Testament scholar at Dallas Theological Seminary writes:[/li]

The book of Acts, which begins with a bang and dies with a whimper, and which so carefully chronicles the events leading up to the trial of Paul in Rome, gives the distinct
impression that Paulâ€™s trial was not yet over. In other words, it is very doubtful that this book was written after 62 CE.[29]

We have thus argued a strong case for a pre-70 A.D. date of authorship for the synoptic Gospels. Once again however, we have left out the Gospel of John. For the most part we are left with external evidence (especially P52) to date John's Gospel. Both the internal and external evidence indicate that the apostle John wrote his Gospel using eyewitness testimony, thus the latest date that John could have written his Gospel is in the late 90's A.D. The most probable date of authorship would be before this date. Somewhere around the 80s and perhaps even the 70s A.D.

However Wallace has compiled seven points which offer a very strong argument for a date of authorship in the 60s A.D using internal evidence. Although I won't get into details, such points include a lack of mention of the fall of Jerusalem and an intricate knowledge of the topography of a pre-70 Jerusalem. His work should not be ignored as they present a very strong case for a early authorship of John. [30]

Conclusion

Throughout this essay, I have been arguing for a date of composition for the canonical Gospels. According to both the external and internal evidence, a particularly strong case can be made for a pre-70 date of authorship for all of the Gospels. The following table [not available in this version, see the PDF version for a detailed table] outlines the most probable date of authorship for each of the Gospels:

Matthew - 60-65 A.D. [31]
Mark - 50-60 A.D.
Luke - 61-62 A.D.
John - 65-90 A.D. [32]

____________________

Endnotes:

[1]. Norman L. Geisler. Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic. 1999) PP: 532-533
[2]. Mark D. Roberts. Can We Trust the Gospels? Investigating the Reliability of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. (Wheaton, IL: Crossway
Books. 2007) PP: 55
[3]. Irenaeus. Against Heresies 3.1. http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/...us/advhaer3.txt
[4]. http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/polycarp.html
[5]. http://www.ntcanon.org/Polycarp.shtml
[6]. E. A. Livingston. Oxford Concise Dictionary of the Christian Church. (New York: Oxford University Press. 2006) PP: 435
[7]. http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/papias.html
[8]. Fragments of Papias. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.vii.ii.vi.html
[9]. Timothy Paul Jones. Conspiracies and the Cross: How to Intelligently Counter the Ten Most Popular Theories That Attack the Gospel of Jesus. (Lake Mary, FL: FrontLine. 2008) PP: 18 Bold emphasis added.
[10]. Ibid.
[11]. Ibid., 19
[12]. Ibid., 20-21
[13]. J. Ed Komoszewski, M. James Sawyer, Daniel B. Wallace. Reinventing Jesus: How Contemporary Skeptics Miss The Real Jesus and Mislead Popular Culture.(Grand Rapids, MI: Kregal Publications. 2006) PP: 116
[14]. Philip Comfort, et al. The Origin of The Bible (Tyndale House Publishers. 2003) PP: 200
[15]. Gregory A. Boyd, Paul Rhodes Eddy. Lord or Legend? Wrestling with the Jesus Dilemma. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books. 2007) PP: 22-23
[16]. Ibid., 23
[17]. Ibid., 26
[18]. J. P. Moreland. Scaling the Secular City: A Defense of Christianity. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books. 1987) PP: 152
[19]. Roberts. 57-58
[20]. I list only five of these points. For a larger list considering of fifteen points, see Norman L. Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics . Also see J. P. Moreland, Scaling the Secular City: A Defense of Christianity. Daniel B. Wallace presents a more detailed and scholarly argument than Geisler and Moreland at http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=1329
[21]. Geisler. 528
[22]. Moreland. 152-153
[23]. Geisler. 528
[24]. Moreland. 153
[25]. Ibid., 153
[26]. Ibid
[27]. Geisler. 528
[28]. Moreland. 153
[29]. Daniel B. Wallace. Acts: Introduction, Outline, and Argument. http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=1329
[30]. See Daniel B. Wallace. The Gospel of John: Introduction, Argument, Outline. http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=1328 for more
information and for his detailed argument for a pre-70 date of authorship for John.
[31]. I hesitate to date Matthew around 60-65 .A.D (I affirm a Markan priority), although I do this because Wallace seems to reject the idea that Luke used Matthew in his
Gospel. See http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=969 fd
[32]. Wallace presents seven points for a pre-70 A.D. date of authorship for John. See http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=1329

A Review of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

Thu, 22 May 2008 21:31:51 +0000

Retrieved from here

Ben Stein's Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

Timothy H.

Ben Stein's recent new movie has attracted quite a bit of controversy. As a result, I decided to go to my local movie theater, where I haven't been in almost three years, to see what all this ruckus was all about. I bought my tickets online on Wednesday and went to the movie theater to pick them up today. As I entered the theater, it was moderately packed, and as a result my two companions and I had to take some seats which were placed in an awkward position. One of the first scenes in the movie involved Ben Stein speaking to a group of students about the film's main topic, which was freedom, more precisely, academic freedom. We are then treated with a few clips of figures such as Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennet giving their opinion on science and religion.

The film then focuses to the systematic oppression and censorship of intelligent design, with Stein interviewing scientists who lost their jobs for their association with the ID movement. One such person lost her job for just mentioning ID in her classroom. The film likens intellectual suppression to the Berlin wall, with one half of the wall allowing for freedom while the other half of the wall suppressing all freedom. Darwinism is on the first side and Intelligent design on the latter side.

It then turns its attention to the Intelligent design movement, intending to dispell the myth that Intelligent design advocates are quite frankly, idiots. Stein visits the Discovery Institute, which is the group that first started this movement. He then interviews prominent figures in the movement such as Jonathan Wells, Stephen C. Meyer, William A. Demkski, and others. The film then seeks to establish the validity and credulity of the ID movement by focusing on it's scientific proof. The origin of life is a target of specific focus, with the complexity of the cell being the focal point of the discussion. Stein interviews the noted Darwinist Michael Ruse and asks for his thoughts on the origin of life. Ruse states that it could have happened "on the backs of crystals." At that point the film begins to ridicule Ruse's comment because of its absurdity. At a later point in the movie, when Richard Dawkins is interviewed about the same question, he replies that he nor anyone else knows the answer to the question. A stunning computer animation is then presented detailing the complexity of the cell. Up unto that point, I had realized that the cell was extraordinarily complex, but not as complex as it really was!

Then the film shifts to a the topic of Darwinism and it's consequences. Stein interviews David Berlinski, who comments that although Darwinism is not a sufficient condition for Nazism and such, it is a necessary condition. Moral atrocities such as eugenics and the Holocaust in particular are linked to Darwinism. Stein visits a facility where the Nazis carried on their systematic elimination of Jews and reflects on the consequences of Darwinism. Other consequences of Darwinism include: no meaning to life, no objective morality, and no human free will. A Darwinist professor is interviewed whose life is robbed of any meaning because of his beliefs. It is shown that Darwinism is a a very bleak belief system which has led to great moral atrocities such as Hitler's Holocaust, which was primarily influenced because of Darwinist ideology.

As the movie winds down, Stein conducts a long interview with Richard Dawkins, whom the movie likens to the spokesperson for atheism. Richard Dawkins emerges out of the interview looking like a total idiot. When Stein asks Dawkins the question "Who created the heavens and the earth", Dawkins responds by asking that Stein is begging the question because he presupposes that a Creator made the universe. He then says that the word "what" is a better term to use instead of "who." When asked to account for the enormous complexity of life, it appears that Dawkins presupposes that life is complex! But rather than say that God designed life, Dawkins falls back to Francis Crick's theory of directed panspermia. Dawkins now himself begs the question of "who designed the aliens?"

The focal point of the film is the suppression of academic freedom. Expelled shows how our Darwinist dominated society attempts to suppress any notion of an intelligent Designer. The Nationial Center for Science Education is featured as a a watchdog group who serves as part of the infrastructure which engages in the suppression of ID. The movie features several levels of suppression, ranging from the institution to watchdog groups, the media, and even courts.

Though the film is largely positive, I have to issue a warning concerning the ID movement. First, it does not identify the God of the Bible, it only identifies a general Designer. Hence the movement has had much support from other religions because the Designer could be Allah, Vishnu, or any whatever one chooses to associate with the Designer. Second the Intelligent Design Movement may accept a Designer who designed initial life, but many proponents believe that evolution took over once the complex life was designed.

Overall, the list of people interviewed by the film includes the following:

-Richard Dawkins
-Richard Steinberg
-Paul Zachary "PZ" Myers
-Michael Shermer
-Caroline Crocker
-Michael Engor
-Robert J. Marks
-Guillermo Gonzalez
-Eugene Scott
-William A. Demski
-Stephen C. Meyer
-Jonathan Wells
-David Berlinski
-Michael Ruse
-Alister McGrath

The movie ends with Stein encouraging us to speak up about this academic suppression with the hopes that freedom will eventually win. As the movie ended, the audience seated around me broke out in applause. Such a fitting end to an good movie. I'm giving Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, 5/5 stars. Despite the criticism I offered, the film has an overly Christian theme to it, even though Stein himself is Jewish.

____________________________

Â©Copyright 2008 SCAE Ministries

The Good Reason Theodicy

Thu, 22 May 2008 21:28:37 +0000

I was asked to post some of my essays in the Encyclopedia, here is one. Retrieved from here

The Problem of Evil: The â€œGood Reasonâ€ Theodicy

Timothy H.

Theodicy is the attempt to reconcile the existence of an omni-benevolent God with the existence of evil. Though there are many different approaches to theodicy this essay will cover the good reason theodicy. The good reason theodicy attempts to reconcile the existence of an omni-benevolent God and moral evil by asserting that God has morally sufficient reasons to allow evil to exist. Inspiration for the good reason theodicy comes in part from the account of Joseph. In it, Joseph goes through difficulties and hardships in his life only to have a good result come about in the end. Genesis 50:20 reads:

But as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive.

It is reasonable for one to assume that since God was omni-benevolent and evil exists, God must have a good reason for evil to exist. Moreover, as seen in the account of Joseph it can be shown that God has morally sufficient reasons for allowing evil. Now the atheist has not been able to demonstrate that God does not have morally sufficient reasons for allowing evil. The Christian philosopher William Lane Craig remarked:

You see the atheist presupposes that God cannot have morally sufficient reasons for permitting the evil the evil in the world. But that assumption is just not necessarily true. So long that it as is even possible that God has morally sufficient reasons for permitting evil, it follows that God and evil are logically consistent [1]

So therefore it is more reasonable to assume that God has morally sufficient reasons for evil rather than to assume that God does not have morally sufficient reasons for permitting evil. Why? Because the atheist has not been able to offer a shred of evidence that shows that God does not have morally sufficient reasons for permitting evil.

Another way to view this theodicy is to analogize it. Suppose we're walking alongside a wooden fence one day and you spot a small hole in that fence. You go toward that hole to investigate and look through the hole. Upon doing that, you see a man with a gun pointing at something and about to fire. Immediately, you assume that he is going to kill someone. However you look on and see what happens. You then see that your initial assumption was false, as the man was not attempting to kill something but instead he was shooting at a target to improve his marksmanship.

This is the way that we as humans view things. We see things from a narrow perspective and not through a wide perspective. Had the hole been bigger, you would have most likely seen that the man was firing at a target and not intending to kill something earlier. However this isn't the case. We as finite humans are limited in what we can see. Thus we may initially see assume certain events to be so bad that it disproves the existence of an all loving God. However often times we neglect to see the long term effects and instead we focus on the short term effects. As outlined in the account of Joseph, he endured hardship only to have God use him to save the lives of the people of Egypt. Gregory Koukl remarked:

Now the real question at this point is, "Was it worth it? Good can come out of evil, but was it worth it in the long run, the measure of good that comes out of the measure of evil in the world?" And my response is that the only One who could ever know that is God. You and I couldn't know that because our perspective is too limited. Only God is in a position to accurately answer that question. [2]

But what about events which have no apparent long term benefit? Well let me introduce you to a branch of mathematics which is called chaos theory. A basic tenet of chaos theory is that our environment is so sensitive that events which may seem insignificant to us now may have a profound effect on determining the future. For example, an insignificant event such as the flapping of a butterfly's wings could very well set off a chain reaction of events that end with a hurricane forming in the Atlantic ocean.

Taking this into account we can reason that events which may have no seemingly apparent long term benefit may cause a chain reaction of events in which God's morally sufficient reason for allowing that evil is manifested decades later halfway around the world in a seemingly unrelated event.

In conclusion, the good reason theodicy is adequate in reconciling the existence of an omni-benevolent God with the existence of evil. Although I personally do not hold to this approach to theodicy, it is most certainly a valid approach to solving the problem of evil.

_________________________________

Works Cited:

1. http://www.bethinking.org/resource.php?ID=...amp;CategoryID=
2. http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5093
_________________________________

Â©Copyright 2008 â€“ SCAE Ministries

Societal Control in the 1984 World

Tue, 20 May 2008 14:49:29 +0000

This is an extra credit assign I did for AP Comparative Politics and Government last year.

1984

Newspeak-

"the only language in the world whose vocabulary gets smaller every year."

The source of legitimacy of any institution has always been what the people think and say. Governments have known and utilized this fact since the beginning of human civilization. Ever since the first day that one man controlled another, the one(s) in control has utilized various means by which to keep power. Democracies have tended to advocate that the open exchange of ideas strengthens the government by allowing the citizens to voice their opinions and release discontent in an acceptable manner. However, in many authoritarian nations the system operates in the opposite way. What people think and say endangers the state or leader. Only if the people truly believe in the cause can they be allowed to articulate their thoughts and even then only while under close supervision. As it would be practically impossible to convince everyone of the legitimacy of the government, the dissenting voices must be suppressed in some manner. In addition, those who might spread or incite such dissenting opinions, but also are necessary to keep the system running, must be subjugated in some form to ensure that they don't lead a rebellion. This occurence, the middle class leading the lower classes in revolution, has led to the destruction of many regimes. In such regimes, these struggles represent some of the main goals and objectives.

A party member of Ingsoc (English Socialism) â€œis expected to have no private emotions and no respites from enthusiasm. He is supposed to live in a continuous frenzy of hatred of foreign enemies and internal traitors, triumph over victories, and self-abasement before the power and wisdom of the Party.â€ The Inner Party controls the Outer Party with extreme watchfulness. The Book (Goldstein's) states that every revolution has been caused by the middle class (Outer Party) convincing the lower class (Proles) to revolt against the upper class (Inner Party). Methods such as Newspeak, the Thought Police, and various other seemingly pointless regulations guarentee the obedience of the dangerous Outer Party to some degree. The Proles, on the other hand, are given complete freedom, since, as they cannot lead themselves (in the Partyâ€™s opinion, revolt can only origninate in the Outer Party), it is harmless to allow them to perform such unorthodox actions as to converse in Oldspeak (English) or exercise freedoms of speech, sex, and other revolutionary activities. In addition, any discontent or unwanted ideologies are dissipated by the presense of mass quantities of pointless, meaningless propoganda and assorted base stories and pleasures. Thus the lower class is kept content and ignorant while the middle class is kept well within reins.

Any spread of an ideology requires a means of socializing. Without such means, the ideology cannot grow to be a threat to an existing regime. In a typical language, the people can easily criticize governments, espouse revolutionary concepts, and plan acts of subversion. Newspeak intends to eliminate the possibility of even describing concepts such as â€œdemocracyâ€, â€œfreedomâ€, or â€œfree speechâ€. As Goldstein's "The Book" explains, â€œHow could you have a slogan like 'freedom is slavery' when the concept of freedom has been abolished?â€ If I may add to this, the differences in language (and artificial differences in wealth, status, education) between the Proles and the Parties (the former speak English; the latter will soon speak Newspeak) make any communication at all difficult, creating an even more secure government. The controls, and problems asssociated alongside, exhibited over the language are shown by the fact that those who must speak the new language (the Inner and Outer Parties) are the only ones capable of revolution. It is very difficult to order disorganized, uneducated masses to learn a new language or change their beliefs. But it is much easier to form an urban, educated, open society to your revolutionary beliefs. The proles are generally ignored (an occasional rabble rouser gets taken care of but no major campaigns) while they are separated from the Outer Party who themselves can't articulate ways of disobedience. Without the ability to articulate, the people cannot revolt.

Several disputes exist concerning this theory, though. One problem that may arise would be the possibility that discontented people may use doublethink to circumvent the problems that occur with Newspeak, e.g., they could say that Big Brother is ungood. This statement is false, as Big Brother is goodness. However, with doublethink one could hold the two contradictory concepts in one's mind and infer a suppressed point of view. To those who dislike Big Brother, this way of thinking could be used to discuss and spread unorthodox ideas or propoganda. Another criticism claims that the people are not shaped by the language; the language represents fundamental human thoughts. Although the language used to express such thoughts as "revolution" and "freedom" may disappear, the human nature that caused such concepts to initially evolve would remain (or re-evolve) and compel the individuals to rebel against the system. Clearly the suppression of language would dampen the ability to organize and spread, but still there's reason to believe that humans deep down have their own consciences and beliefs. While much of this may be conditioned by environment, many believe that there is some fundamental human nature embedded in each person. Although it must be admitted that this may be more of a psychological question, still I believe there is sufficient doubt behind the premise to cause questioning of the theory. Also, the stated puropse of Newspeak is to eliminate the ability to articulate anti-government (or anything the government deems is unfit for communication) thoughts is that those outside of the control of the system; parochials, rebels, those in remote places; wouldn't be affected by these changes. Just as the inhabitants of the mountain villages and secluded areas around the world have their seperate "universes", those outside the control of the state would still speak their own original language, be able to hold their beliefs, and not ultimately be affected by the reforms caused by the Party. As in Farenheit 451, enclaves of free thought may exist in such a global (or mega-regional) authoritarian regime.

Another consideration questions one of the fundamental theories of The Book; the statement that only the upper or middle classes can lead a revolution. In the absense of such a class (the Party, Inner or Outer, are far different from our modern high and middle classes), the Proles may eventually rise themselves. Since fundamentally this situation remains vastly different from any historical precedent, one cannot definitely cite historical experiences as evidence. Again, this leads to another psychological question. If a lower class is oppressed indefinitely and no group comes to save them, would they eventually save themselves?

Every ideology claims that their opponents use â€œdoublethinkâ€ or â€œNewspeak.â€ In reality, the truth is that each person interprets actions differently. Many modern-day examples exist (their opponents claim) as a form of "Newspeak": social reforms (affirmative action), business buzz words (right-size), military lingo (conflict, collateral damage), and especially political rhetoric (Axis of Evil, quagmire). Stemming from the discouragement of some ideas, some critics claim that thoughts and words are being made into "thoughtcrime" by political correctness or enforcement of morality (or other numerous life-controlling actions). Their claim states that the ideas that can be expressed in public are restricted by what others think, thus violating the freedom of speech.Currently, laws on hate crimes increase penalties on cases of violence suspected to be based on prejudice or other preconcieved discrimination. Supporters claim that this helps to protect minorities that could be in danger among a majority controlled population. Opponents claim that the extra penalty is not based on any crime committed; only the intent. The basis of penalizing the thought itself is against the Constitution. In many areas and countries, attempts have been made to restrict access to witchraft, religion (both Christian and other), racially prejudiced materials, and other controversial or unorthodox materials. Nearly every side has at times advocated the restriction of such information to others; especially young people. In addition, some beliefs such as intelligent design or religion have been taken out of the hard sciences in most classrooms. Those opposing say that this act is censorship and restricting of unpopular views. Supporters of this decision claim that outdated thoughts must be suppressed since they have been scientifically proven incorrect. As there are no truly impartial individuals, there can be no definitive statement of which, if any, of these examples are true Orwellian "Newspeak".

In-depth analysis of anything brings into being reasoning skills. In such a complex structure as language, the practice received could spread to other categories. So, an exceedingly simple language would reduce reasoning capacities. (theory) Ebonics also could fit in. I would have added these but I figured that 1500 words was a good length and it was starting to get confusing in my mind)

The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian Review

Mon, 19 May 2008 00:34:22 +0000

The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian
Directed by: Andrew Adamson
Distributed by: Walt Disney Pictures, Buena Vista Pictures
Running time: 137 minutes
Budget: US$200 million
MPAA Rating: PG

Short Summary:
Narnia, over 1000 years later, is ruled by the Telmarine, a human race. Prince Caspian, pushed aside by his uncle in a race for the throne, gathers the Narnians to get back his throne.

Review:

Prince Caspian is an adventure that has too little action for its length. Don't get me wrong, it's a good movie, but for a movie 137 minutes long, I expected more action.

The tone is darker than the first, but there are really only 2 major fight scenes to take advantage of the tone (in fact it's really just the first one). Also, I felt the pacing was a little awkward and uneven. Sometimes it would rush to get to a certain point, then slow down dramatically.

Also, the movie assumes you know Narnia pretty well or you just watched the previous movie, as there are a lot of references to the first movie. For example, one of the characters that appears was a major character in the first one, but I didn't realize it until someone told me.

But yes, while there are lingering problems, the movie is still entertaining. The little action left me wanting more.

Prince Caspian is a good movie despite its flaws. I do recommend it, but in the context of the summer movies, Iron Man would be a better spent $10.

My Rating: 7/10

My review of the Asus EeePC

Sun, 18 May 2008 06:36:19 +0000

My review of the Asus EeePC

I heard about the Asus EeePC when it first came out but I never bothered to get it, although it seemed really cool; Linux preinstalled all in a 7 inch laptop. But the small screen and the small SSD space kind of deterred me from it.

But in March or so, the EeePC 900 was announced. The screen was to be 8.9inches, up from 7 inches earlier (a 1024x600 resolution from 800x480 resolution in the older model). I knew as soon as I read it I wanted it.

And well, when May 12 rolled around, I ordered mine off New Egg. $550 + $11 shipping, not bad for a 20GB SSD and a bigger screen. Anyway, the package was supposed to be delivered Thursday but since I had practice, I wasn't able to be at the house at the time of the delivery; my dad had left for work approximately ten minutes before UPS arrived

Anyway, we picked up the EeePC after school on Friday at the UPS delivery site but due to previous plans I ended up opening the EeePC at about 8 o'clock that night.

My first reaction? This laptop is smalllll.

It really is! The screen is the perfect size and it's very crisp. Even with a 900 mhz Celeron, the laptop feels snappy and responsive. The only issue with the small size is the smaller keyboard; since I've started this review (which I'm typing on the EeePC as we speak) I've probably made twenty or so more errors. No matter, though, I've only had this EeePC for about a day now so it will take awhile to get used to.

Of course, the first thing I did was enable the Full Desktop Mode with KDE alongside the IceWM tabbed interface that was default with the EeePC. Don't get me wrong, I don't hate the tabbed interface, but, well, I'm not new to Linux so the tabbed interface is too limiting for me. I would rather have KDE. But even though KDE seems like a resource hog, it feels very fast although the boot up time is slightly hampered with KDE versus IceWM (naturally).

Tabbed interface:

(Full Desktop mode is at the end of the review)

But what do you know, the first time enabling Full Desktop Mode I end up putting the EeePC in an infinite boot sequence and so I can't access anything. No worry, I hit F9 as the EeePC boots up and I reinstall the Xandros Linux Operating System. I think it's awesome that they added the image of the OS-- I know it was a problem with the older EeePCs because of the lower storage capacity but with 20GB here, it's no problem as I won't be storing a lot of things anyway. But having the ability to tweak the system to my heart's content and still knowing that I can repair it no matter what in a matter of minutes is quite awesome.

The display does seem quite small at first and well it kind of is but you get used to it after awhile. As I said before I'm typing this review on the EeePC and currently my eyes are used to the screen but once I go back to my 22â€ display, I'm probably going to say â€œWow, this screen is sooo big!â€

As for features, the EeePC has:
Dozens of preinstalled applications
3 USB ports (two more than the MacBookAir!!)
An ethernet port (one more than the MacBook Air!!)
SD slot (one more than the MacBook Air!!)
Multitouch trackpad (I dunno what to call it. It's like the MacBook Air where you â€œpinchâ€ the trackpad to zoom into images and the opposite to zoom out. And to scroll you simply move down on the trackpad with two fingers.)
1.3 megapixel webcam
Microphone

If you have any questions on the features, just ask, I'll answer them.

I haven't been able to really test its battery capacity but from what I've heard it's the only real weakness of the EeePC that isn't easily solved. The reviews have put it at about two and a half hours of battery life but it's not much of an issue for me as I don't really do a lot of traveling and so most of the time I am next to a charger.

All in all, I love this little machine. It packs so much power in a little box and I am surprised that Asus was able to pull it off. Of course, the Easy Mode is, well, easy, so if you aren't afraid to experiment you should enable the Full Desktop Mode and mess around on there.

And for those who say â€œbut I can't run Crysis/Photoshop!!â€, stop complaining. The EeePC is made for Internet applications and so it's built on a light but powerful system; don't expect your games or image editing programs to work. For what I do on the computer, the EeePC is perfect for me and it is a very good machine.

Pictures:

Full Desktop Mode with KDE:

(I have three workspaces with three different wallpapers)

And yes, I am a fan of nature wallpaper

Rating: 9/10

For more information:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eeepc

The Dark Tower

Thu, 08 May 2008 18:38:28 +0000

Here I will explain a little about The Dark Tower series and it's characters. The series was written over a period of more than thirty years by Stephen King, and many people (including myself) think it to be the greatest book series ever written, and Stephen King's Magnum Opus. Okay, here goes.

The series starts off with a book called "The Gunslinger," in which Roland, the world's last Gunslinger, is chasing The Man In Black. Roland has been on a quest for the Dark Tower since the age of fourteen, and it is now unclear exactly how old Roland is. He could be anywhere from fifty to a few hundred years old, due to the random slips of time since the "world moved on."

The Dark Tower is thought to be the Nexus of all existence, and it supposedly holds all the thousands of universes in its orbit. Lately, the Dark Tower and the Beams which hold it up have been growing weak, and Roland is going to the Dark Tower in order to try and fix this. Because the Beams are weakening (many have already snapped) time and direction is off. What used to lay north may now lay to the west, and the normal 24-hour day may now be closer to thirty hours. Some nights seem to go on for several days.

On his quest, Roland has encountered The Man In Black several times. The Man In Black, or Walter, is some sort of demon in disquise, and is the right-hand man of The Crimson King, who is trying to topple the Dark Tower. Walter has been eluding Roland for some time, although Roland is not entirely sure that Walter could not just kill him if he saw fit. It is soon revealed that Walter also goes by the name of Randall Flagg, who some might remember is the main antagonist from at least two other Stephen King books, "Eyes of the Dragon" and "The Stand."

Throughout the series, Roland is joined on his quest by three other people, who come from other universes, and different times. Together, they discover that reality is a lot more complicated than they ever suspected, and it has come down to them to save it. They are the last of the line of Arthur Eld; the last Gunslingers. And before their journey is finished and Roland climbs to the top of the Tower, any or all of them may die.

This is all I will tell of the actual plot. I don't want to give too much away, because reading this book series has been one of the best experiences of my life, and I hope that others will also get that chance. Frequent King readers will find that many of his works tie into the Dark Tower series. This is why I enjoy these books so much; even when I am finished with the Dark Tower (I am currently on the last book) I will still be able to experience it. I highly reccomend this series to everyone.

Strategy And Tactics

Thu, 08 May 2008 05:56:33 +0000

This is a quick intro I did. Pretty much I'm going to try and explore military doctrine by doing case studies of revolutionary generals, situations, and other such concepts. Does this sound interesting to anyone?

Military Strategy and Tactics

Hannibal Barca, Carthaginian general.

Before the actual combat is described, a general overview is necessary. The Carthaginian Empire was founded in northeastern Africa circa 800BC, at various times controlling Sicily, Corsica, Sardinia, the Balearic Islands, southern Spain and extensive coastland areas of northern Africa. The economy was sea-based, and revolved around commercial exploits. Thus, the exploratory forces and fleets were unparalleled in skill and experience. An elite group of pure Carthaginians (an oligarchy) controlled the city and government. Slaves and Africans filled most low positions, and the military, except for higher level officers, were hired mercenaries. Fundamentally then, warfare was precarious and tough resolve was hard to obtain. The elites did not have a populace willing to risk all in defense of the state, and the armies were far more devoted to money and the individual commanders than any ideals. Finally, the two dominant families in the family constantly quarreled. One had the political power, the other military command, and when the army was off campaigning, little aid or provisions were put in place to help the military. So Carthage was an immensely rich, innovative, and efficient empire with little political unity or military cohesion.

This empire encountered the rising global power of Rome. Rome was originally a poor rural community that managed to more or less unite Italy merely by constantly defending and counterattacking opponents. Without any particular plan of conquest, merely paranoia of invasion, Rome became master of Italy, and realized it was strong. Their military organization at this time was based on the citizen militia. Citizens and “allies” (conquered Italian states) were obligated to serve in the military in times of need, and obedience to the state was the highest priority. Unlike the Carthaginians, while this military may not have the initial competence, it could easily absorb brutal defeats, and resolutely plod along. With a practically limitless (in terms of the day) reserves, a strong social devotion, and a paranoid desire to conquer opponents before they could pose a threat, Rome could not allow Carthage to establish itself on the shores of Italy.

On the northeast corner of Sicily, a small strait away from Italy, a group of pirates established themselves and began to pillage the locals and attack commerce. Upon invitation by the locals, Carthage sent a force to defeat this group. Rome could not allow Carthage a foothold so close to Italy, so the First Punic War broke out. The conflict lasted over twenty years, and ended when Carthage sued for peace, not having lost the war, but just worn out by the financial costs. Sicily was given over to Rome, and the two forces began to remobilize for the next war. Ala World War I and II, the first conflict consisted of bludgeoning, exhaustion, and inconclusiveness, and the second was lightning fast with battle tactics dominating the campaign. In the twenty-three year period between the First and Second Punic Wars, the Carthaginians sought to make up for the loss of Sicily. Hannibal Barca and his father fought the tribes in Spain, and conquered the majority of the peninsula. This new “Barca Empire” provided large numbers of new recruits, and enabled the Barcas to establish a proper army, without the intrusions of the opposition family in the African territories. War broke out once again, but the overall strategies had evolved, and Hannibal Barca revolutionized strategy and tactics. This man was so accomplished in his methods, that for centuries, whenever disaster struck, the normally stoic Roman men would declare that “Hannibal is at the Gates!”

More to come...

USA Patriot Act

Thu, 24 Apr 2008 05:12:44 +0000

So, this is a very general overview of the USA Patriot Act. I don't have the necessary information, time, unbiasness, or knowledge to analyze enough specific cases to conclusively make any sort of proper decision on whether the Acts are legal. I'll leave that to the professionals. This paper merely deals with the historical precedent for actions such as these, the current situation in US and Western democracies, court cases regarding the Patriot Act, and other information crucial to understanding the debate. My conclusion, based on extensive research, is that, while the Acts do have cases of overly powerful measures, and unduly intrusive executive authority, the democratic system instituted by our forefathers is working properly. Courts rule against the administration, Congress amends the law, and President Bush mostly stands aside.

I encourage people to read more about the situation, but I hope this provides enough general knowledge for the readers to understand the debate.

(NOTE, I saw a few annoying errors when reading this before turning it in (such as mispelling Al-Qaeda). I'll fix these later.)

In Time of War, Must the Law Fall Silent?

“Inter arma enim silent leges”

On October 26, 2001, shortly after the horrific 9/11 attacks, Congress passed and President Bush signed the USA PATRIOT Act. This legislation intended to remedy the serious security problems America had at the time; in effect, to abandon the benevolent inactivity of the post Cold War days and return to the realization that there is still a battle to fight and win. Many of the reforms were necessary and quite reasonable, such as bringing about interagency cooperation. However, the act is widely criticized for a number of provisions, primarily focusing on communications, which restrict personal freedoms. Pundits, commentators, and even some politicians revel in the chaos, using manipulative pathos, oversimplifications, out-of-context information, or even outright falsities to advance their agendas. The subject of whether these acts are justified is a quandary; a question that is difficult and terrifying to answer, and not to be taken lightly. Ultimately, appropriate action must be taken, but it is difficult to draw a line in the sand where action is justifiable and government force is sufficient but not overbearing. Although I personally support the Patriot Act, an assertion that I make with not a little trepidation, the opposing view, that personal freedoms must be defended with few qualifications, is certainly a valid consideration. Nonetheless, it would seem that these endless rhetorical debates, about something as complex and volatile as the Patriot Act, are inadequate without context or perspective, so this paper begins with the past. A holistic and balanced view of the matter, starting with history and precedent, provides a reasonable frame in which to look at the moral, legal, and practical consequences of this legislation.

Since the earliest days of human civilization, controversy has surrounded the distribution and use of power. In what amounts and circumstances can the state intervene against individuals? During the bygone days of emperors and kings, a careful balance was crafted between what the ruler demanded and the people would accept. Misuse of power meant expensive rebellions. However, beginning with the Greek city-states, a new philosophy emerged, which became the basis for western thought and society. Freedom is given to men not as a stopper from revolution, but because it is in the fundamental nature of men to be free. This notion of the “natural rights of man” became the foundation of thinkers such as John Locke, who in turn spurred on the Age of Enlightenment. America’s war of independence represented a new evolutionary level of this concept, from the British paternalistic republican structure to a supposedly democratic system. The pursuit of democracy was idealized, and strong checks were put in place to ensure that the government would be reasonably restrained from violating the rights of the people. This has become a national identity of sorts, and a point of great consensus in times of peace. Unfortunately for the libertarian movement, dire circumstances often cripple ideology in favor of pragmatism. In times of need, leaders have been given or taken extreme power to solve the issues at hand. From the Alien and Sedition Acts, to Lincoln’s breaches of the Constitution, to the present Patriot Act, these actions, whether ultimately dismissed or approved of, have provoked extensive debate. Idealistic defenses of civil rights are a great asset to our nation, and are the basis of our civil society, but obviously cases exist where they must be abridged. It is useful to examine what our forefathers said and did, as some precedents to draw light upon the current situation. After all, on debates over whether these actions should be allowable, who better to look to than those men who wrote the very papers?

The early foundations of our country, and our constitutional law, stem directly from our forefathers who fought for independence and debated about our future government. Giants such as Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson eloquently and uncompromisingly attacked movements like the current Patriot Act. Franklin declared that “those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety” while Jefferson said that in a choice between “government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government”, he would, without hesitation, choose the latter (Wikiquotes). However, other great men disagreed and were far less radical, showing that the constitutional intent of extent of liberty is not definite. Personal freedoms were important, but did not override crucial matters. John Adams passed the infamous Alien and Sedition Acts, during the undeclared Quasi-War of 1798-1800 with France, that had the ability (not used in actuality) to suppress domestic opposition to the Federalist government. George Washington, although technically neutral in cabinet affairs, overwhelmingly supported the ideas of Alexander Hamilton over Jefferson, to the extent that Jefferson resigned from Washington’s cabinet. Hamilton pushed for a very strong central government, and constantly used the necessary-and-proper-clause of the Constitution, which gives the government power above and beyond what is explicitly stated in the Constitution. He further stated, "Safety from external danger is the most powerful director of national conduct. Even the ardent love of liberty will, after a time, give way to its dictates." (UMKC) In fact, even Jefferson, the epitome of a strict constitutional idealist, once he became president, continued the same extra-constitutional practices of his Federalist predecessors. To clarify, these examples are not intended to say that our founders disfavored individual rights. By no means. However, if the writers of the Constitution saw the occasional need for pragmatism over idealism, this puts into question whether the Patriot Act is inherently incorrect in its view on the flexibility of the constitutional in certain matters.

The previous examples attempt to show that the constitutional founders were clearly not united in libertarian ideals. Another field to investigate involves actions taken during crisis. The issue of whether or not this "War on Terror" is in truth a war will be addressed later. For now, we'll look at previous crisis measures, to put the current actions into perspective. On one end of the spectrum are the Alien and Sedition Acts, which are nearly universally dismissed as wrongfully created. Internal aliens thought to endanger the peace and stability were monitored, aliens of nations currently at war with the United States could be deported, and the acts criminalized supposedly false, scandalous, or malicious writing. This act is similar in a way to the current situation, since the measures were largely focused on fears of French sympathizers intervening within the States during the Quasi-War with France. This is one example when intrusive measures were summarily dismissed, since although their need may have been real, the action taken was excessive, particularly regarding freedoms of speech. Alternatively, during the chaos of the American Civil War, President Lincoln ignored courts and Congress, suspended Habeas Corpus, conducted military tribunals for citizens serving in foreign militaries, shut down opposition newspapers, imprisoned dissidents or political opponents, and executed many other constitutionally questionable maneuvers. Lincoln’s decisions were much more invasive than the Alien and Sedition Acts, yet are generally accepted and applauded. Respected constitutional historian Dan Farber declares that Lincoln's defense, claiming necessity allows manipulation of the Constitution, was more or less workable. Although he himself hesitates to connect these actions with the actions of President Bush, Farber states that, if there are questions as to whether our presidency is able to respond to extreme direct threats, "we can look at the Civil War as a test case." Of course, the Civil War was far direr than the War on Terrorism, and necessitated more direct action, but this case shows that the Constitutional rights can be bent to a large degree without breaking, and that, in the abstract, need can supersede idealism.

In future conflicts, such as World Wars One and Two, the Constitutional limits were more generally protected, but executive power, as so often happens, did frequently push the envelope. Since then, after the “imperial presidencies” of the late Cold War period, Congressional oversight has tended to increase along with Presidential authority. However, President Bush, after the World Trade Center attacks, had attempted to maintain extensive power over foreign affairs, even after the 2006 midterm elections, which enabled the Democratic Party an opposition majority in Congress. While the current administration is not a return to the “Imperial Presidencies”, it has admittedly attempted to increase executive power to a point of some worry. As one small example, in the 2006 case of Hamdan v Rumsfield, the US Supreme Court found that President Bush had gone beyond his jurisdiction by ordering that the inmates at Guantanamo Bay be tried by military tribunals. (UMKC) As a whole, in terms of possible presidential overreach, I think that while President Bush is no Adams, and certainly no Lincoln, he has inappropriately advanced the powers of the executive, and the other branches should not hesitate to defend their oversight powers.

So, what does history teach us? To clarify, history is not a mindless cycle of events constantly reoccurring. Every situation is unique. However, two basic principles, relevant to this issue, stand out. Our founder’s views on the struggle between freedom and security are divided, and thus, in all likelihood, is also the Constitution’s original intent. More importantly, there is a definite precedence for matters concerning the War on Terrorism, for both caution and action. Different branches have constantly checked each other in times of unwarranted expansion, but measures such as the Patriot Act have also been allowed if the need is real and the actions are reasonable. A crucial aspect of this qualification revolves over the basis and operation of this war.

War-time powers require an actual war. Does the War on Terror fit this role? War is, according to the base definition, merely a conflict between two parties. Yet, how can one engage in a war on the idea of terror, or even terrorism? I suppose it should then be called the War on Terrorists, which isn’t nearly as catchy. In any case, clearly America is engaging large, organized forces which are well subsidized and have an intense desire to cause serious harm to the United States. Efforts have been put into place to seize funds, eliminate support to terrorists from hostile nations, collaborate on information that will prevent or capture terrorist cells, and generally lead a global coalition against those who practice terrorism. True, it is impossible to utterly destroy the tactic of terrorism. Obviously, that is not the intent. As in the Cold War, the struggle is to confront nations, such as Afghanistan, which spread this tactic and associated ideology, and contain or defeat the expansion in other areas. Victory can never be completely accomplished, but, as in the case of the Cold War, a good enough victory can be achieved to make the remaining adherents ineffective and mostly harmless. As to the proper extent of the War on Terrorists, it is difficult to draw a definite line. In Afghanistan, the United States attacked the Taliban government, which was directly allied with the Al-Qaeda that destroyed the World Trade Center, and therefore it seems safe to say that the war in Afghanistan is a true part of the general war. Al-Queda has been attacking the United States, among many other nations, for a number of years, including the USS Cole incident, the 1993 World Trade Center Bombing (failed), the 1998 US Embassy bombings, and, of course, the September 11th events. Al-Queda is a valid enemy to fight, and there is a distinct, although necessarily limited, basis for extended war-time powers.

Is the Iraq War an honest part of the War on Terrorism? I don’t know. However, America is certainly engaged in continued struggles against Al-Queda and its global allies, in Afghanistan, now Iraq, a number of allied countries (Pakistan, for example), some distinctly unfriendly nations (among many, Somalia), and operatives within America itself. It would seem that this qualifies as a legitimate war, if we restrict the term to the certain terrorist organizations which we are engaging. Does this then justify the war to be on the scale of the US Civil War, when we gave the President practically any power necessary to achieve victory? Of course not. Still, there is a legitimate basis for some scale of intervention, to be qualified by necessities, circumstances, and our political system.

Furthermore, it is interesting to analyze other Western democracies. Obviously their example does not pardon any offences, and we cannot defend actions with the excuse that our friends are doing so as well, but it does put the Patriot Act into a global perspective. America is not alone in a pursuit of security. Privacy international, a civil liberties non-governmental organization, ranked the United Kingdom’s civil liberty rank equal with Russia and China, as one of the “endemic surveillance societies” (New York Times). Video-cameras observe the people of London constantly, and the citizens are closely monitored, with the average Briton being “captured on film about 300 times a day” (New York Times). The Terrorism Act of 2006 allows up to seven years imprisonment for glorifying or encouraging acts of terrorism, passing out such literature, training for such acts, or visiting such sites. Freedom of speech is not the priority. Suspects can be held for twenty-eight days until being charged, and the ruling government furiously attempted to amend the period to ninety days. Australia as well has largely restricted freedoms of speech. Canada’s Anti-Terrorism Act was very similar to the American Patriot Act. The German government’s blanket powers are sweeping and ill-defined. Italy, Spain, and the Netherlands have all increased anti-terrorism measures. World-wide, democracies have been increasing security procedures, to the general detriment of civil liberties. Again, neither these nor the US historical precedents intend to say that the current actions are necessarily good. However, they do seem to point to the conclusion that the current situation is not unique, and that fears about the overreaching power and inherent danger of the Patriot Act may be unfounded.

What then are the specific problems with the USA PATRIOT Act? As stated previously, the general legislation is not too controversial. Additional funding is provided for anti-terrorist activities, miscellaneous laws fix small problems, provisions are put in place to halt money-laundering, tighter border-control procedures are created, aid is given to victims of terrorism or their families, and information is shared between government organizations. The controversy revolves mostly around information gathering, although there are a few cases where the Patriot Act has been used wrongfully. These incidents of misuse include use against the homeless, for drug-related activity, and copy-right infringement, and are usually local governments acting without proper authority. Incidents like these are frustrating and troublesome, but are not cases of great national importance.

More important controversies revolve around communication and information, including intrusive surveillance, obtaining of personal records, and false accusations of terrorist-related activities. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) declared that “there has never been a more urgent need to preserve fundamental privacy protections and our system of checks and balances than the need we face today”. Tens of thousands of “National Security Letters” (NSLs) were issued to obtain financial records concerning customers of Las Vegas businesses. Telephone communication companies released large amounts of personal information on individuals through similar NSLs. It is within the law to demand these records, but there is reason to believe that these cases were not dire, and that too much information was voluntarily disclosed by the parties being investigated. Personal records, ranging from medical results to library book checkouts, can be probed on the discretion of investigators. Authorities can, through Sneak-and-Peek warrants, obtain search warrants without notifying the searched. Wire-taps have been put into place without the obligatory court-approval. Together, along with other measures, these paint a very poor picture of the internal freedoms in America.

In matters of false accusations, the situation doesn’t look much brighter. The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) sympathetically reported that Sabri Benkahla, a supposed member of the “Virginia Jihad”, a group training to fight in Kashmir, was wrongfully accused and held in extended custody. He was detained for a month before being alerted to his “crime” and was tried and acquitted. Brandon Mayfield, an Oregon attorney, was charged of being involved in the Madrid Bombings and was held wrongfully for two weeks. The Economist reports that immediately after the September 11 attacks, hundreds of foreigners were rounded up and held, many without charge, for months, while tens of thousands more were questioned and finger-printed. Apparently, none were terrorists. These such occurrences are very unfortunate, but are being addressed by the courts, and the Patriot Act itself is being modified by Congress.

To an unprecedented level, the courts have taken an active role in combating unconstitutional and unfair measures. A judicial audit found that the FBI has improperly used Patriot Act powers to investigate individuals, sometimes without proper authorization, or in non-emergency matters. Federal Judge John D. Bates found over 1000 cases of improper use of National Security Letters, and demanded that government documents of the cases be handed over for examination. (FAC) In Doe v Gonzales, a New York federal judge declared that these national security letters were unconstitutional, breaking at least the Fourth Amendment. (DoJ) The case regarding Brandon Mayfield resulted in the judge declaring that the Acts interfered with the 4th Amendment, and attempted “to break down barriers between criminal law enforcement and intelligence gathering.” (New York Times) Rasul v Bush led to the Supreme Court ruling that inmates at Guantanamo Bay could challenge their detention in American Courts. These court cases have led directly to changes in the law, more judicial oversight, and more Congressional action against certain controversial actions.

Many of these cases are fairly ambiguous and complex, and first impressions may be incorrect. Miscellaneous incidents, often from over-ambitious local administrations, are unfortunate, but are all too common in the bureaucratic nightmare that is called government. They should be addressed, but are minor enough to be of little overall consequence. Admittedly a number of individuals have been charged in error, which is a matter of great concern. However, once again, many of these cases have more than meets the eye. The Madrid bombing case was a freak situation, since the man’s fingerprints very closely matched those found on the detonator caps (only twenty individuals matched the prints), and he had, as a lawyer, previously defended terrorists. The odds were miniscule that he was not the culprit. This miniscule chance was judged enough to warrant his short-term confinement, for a greater security benefit. Benkhala actually was a part of the Virginia Jihad group, 9 of 11 of which were convicted originally. He was found innocent of having actually trained in Afghanistan, but was convicted of having committed perjury. He denied that he had trained with militants in Pakistan, when he in fact had. These incidents show that, however flawed our system for locating and prosecuting terrorists may be, associated problems are sometimes exaggerated. Roving wire-taps are disturbing, but not that really revolutionary in actuality. The measures, which end the requirement for separate court approval for each and every device being monitored, have long been available for criminal cases. It seems a small change to allow this in terrorism cases as well. National security letters, which require no probable cause or judicial oversight, do seem inherently unlawful. Doe v Ashcroft though addressed this issue, and the law has been modified to allow for greater judicial review. Many other cases exist, in forms that are confusing and indefinite. However, the system is working, and the government is actually regulating itself. The USA Patriot Act has not achieved perfection, but the courts are identifying points of illegality, Congress is amending the law, and the president is accepting the revisions.

The historical precedent for action such as the Patriot Act cannot be questioned. Our founders, and Constitution, are divided on the issue of security vs. freedom, and honorable men such as Mr. Lincoln strongly justified force when necessary. The war itself, the War on Terrorists, is in theory a proper war, although it is difficult to ascertain if it is proper in its entirety. The practices are questionable at times, but in many cases the facts are distorted and exaggerated. In others, where there is a clear violation of law or rights, our democratic system seems to be functioning properly. This war will not end soon, nor will it end cleanly. Although there are a number of flaws, especially in incompetent implementation and insufficient oversight from the other branches, something on the order of the PATRIOT ACT is needed. Something is certainly required to prevent future terrorist attacks, such as already occurred in New York, London, Madrid, Istanbul, Baghdad, and countless other locations. I believe that, with more oversight and regulation, the Patriot Act is a suitable response to the struggle of our day.

Rammstein

Thu, 24 Apr 2008 00:23:51 +0000

Okay, here is my first addition to this forum. What better way to start than with my favorite band?

Rammstein is a German Industrial metal band, founded in Germany, and consisting of Till Lindemann (lead vocals), Richard Z. Kruspe (lead guitar and backing vocals), Paul H. Landers (rhythm guitar, backing vocals), Oliver "Ollie" Riedel (bass guitar), Christoph "Doom" Schneider (drums and percussion) and Christian "Flake" Lorenz (keyboards). Their songs are performed almost exclusively in German. Formed in 1994, they have sold over 14 million records worldwide. Although the majority of their songs are written in German, Rammstein has had massive success across the world, spanning to every nation. Some would go so far as to say that Rammstein is the most widely-known band in the world.

Rammstein takes its name indirectly from the western German town of Ramstein-Miesenbach, site of a flight show disaster on August 28, 1988. The band's first album, Herzeleid, features a song called "Rammstein," which is dedicated to this tragedy. At the show, three Italian air force jets collided and fell into the audience. About 40 spectators died in the first minutes, and several hundred more were injured. In the next two months, the death toll rose to 72. The extra "m" in the band's name makes it translate literally as "ramming stone."

Rammstein was started by Richard Z. Kruspe. He eventually ended up in West Berlin and started a band in 1993, Orgasm Death Gimmicks. At that time, he was very influenced by American music, especially that of KISS. After the Berlin Wall came down, he moved back home to Schwerin where Till Lindemann played drums in the band First Arsch. At this time, Richard lived with Oliver Riedel, of the band The Inchtabokatables, and Christoph "Doom" Schneider. Richard realized that the music he had previously created did not properly suit him. He envisioned something that would combine machines as well as the sound of hard guitars. The three started working together on a new project.

Richard soon found it extremely difficult to write both music and lyrics at the same time, so he got Lindemann to join Rammstein. Richard first discovered Till when he overheard him singing while he was working. A contest was held in Berlin for amateur bands in 1994, and the winner would receive the opportunity to record a four track demo CD in a professional studio. Kruspe, Schneider, Riedel, and Lindemann won the contest, and sparked the attention of Paul Landers, who wanted in on the project as upon hearing their demo. At this point, all Rammstein needed to complete their machine-sound was a keyboarder. Rammstein then attempted to recruit Christian "Flake" Lorenz, who had played with Landers in Feeling B. At first, Lorenz was hesitant, but eventually agreed to join the band.

More to come!

Network Neutrality: the Basics

Wed, 23 Apr 2008 05:33:05 +0000

If you haven't heard about it already, the issue of something called "network neutrality" has come about, especially with the advent of Comcast's infamous torrent throttling.

This post will explain what network neutrality (net neutrality for short) is to inform those who aren't in the know. This isn't 100% accurate but I will try to make it as accurate as possible).

Network neutrality, or net neutrality, is a principle that is applied to residential broadband networks, of which access is provided by telecommunication companies such as Comcast, AT&T, or Verizon. Exact definitions vary from advocate to opponent, but net neutrality is generally defined as the consumer's ability to access any content of their choice without restriction, hence "neutrality" in the name; all content is treated the same and cannot be preferred or discriminated against by telecommunication companies. Net neutrality has essentially been the rule of the Internet since its inception in the 20th century.

Recently, telecommunication companies, also known as telecoms, have lobbied to create a tiered Internet, which would allow content providers, such as Google, Amazon, eBay, etc to pay in order to get into a higher tier of the Internet, enabling faster speeds for those who pay. Telecoms want to do this because traffic congestion has increased dramatically and the current cables that transfer data across the Internet were not designed to handle streaming video, voice, and another bandwidth-consuming content. The extra revenue that content providers would pay to these telecoms would allow telecoms to build new infrastructures that would be able to handle the congestion.

This congestion, if not solved, can lead to problems. For example, something called the "slashdot" or "digg" effect as been known to take down websites because the massive amount of users that visit a website, causing a high latency (the time delay between a request to a server and the time it takes for the requested content to be received by the client machine), and an interruption of service will occur. If the website paid for a "guaranteed service" and got into the higher tier, something like this wouldn't happen. Additionally, things that simply cannot have a high latency such as remote surgery (performing surgery over great distances using robotics) needs to have a higher priority over a streaming video about a cat dressed as a nun eating out of a dish of gravy (points to who can get that reference). If the doctors using remote surgery suffer lag, it can result in death of the patient.

However, net neutrality advocates are against the telecoms creating a tiered Internet, despite the problems of congestion. Advocates say that disestablishing net neutrality would allow telecoms to control the flow of data in their favor. They could discriminate against certain websites or speed up sites of their sponsors or interests. This control of data would undermine what had made the Internet a success: a level playing field. The level playing field has brought about innovation because rather than rewarding the site with the most money, it rewards the site with the best idea, something that other forms of media have failed to provide at a mass scale in the past 20 years.

It's getting a little late so I'll be expanding on this later.

History of B-Boying (Breakdancing)

Wed, 23 Apr 2008 04:52:29 +0000

Note, this is definitely NOT a comprehensive history of b-boying. This is knowledge I've picked up over the time and I feel compelled to share it

Hip-hop itself began in the early 1970s in the Bronx, New York. Clive Campbell, a local DJ known as Kool Herc , would throw block parties, where he would play upbeat music in order to get people to dance, in addition to having MCs, or rappers, freestyle lines.

The genre of music called the "breakbeat" was invented by Kool Herc when he took two discs of the same song and played the "break", which was the part of the music where there's no voice and almost solely a percussion solo. Once the first disc was done playing the break, he let the second disc play the break, doubling the length of the break, thus creating the "breakbeat." These songs were usually funk and disco songs. When these breaks occurred, he would call out to all the dancers "B-Boys go down!", with the B in B-Boy standing for Break (or Bronx, depends on the person you talk to really).

The first crews developed later, started by Afrika Bambataa, called the Zulu Kings. Additionally there were also the "Nigga Twins." The Zulu Kings are still around today. Soon, Rock Steady Crew was established around 1977 with the founders Jimmy D and JoJo.

Anyways, I'm done now. I'll add more later.

Thoughts on Perpetual Motion

Fri, 01 Jun 2007 11:25:00 +0000

Before any of you (who care, that is) decide to criticize me right off the bat as being defiant of those oh-so-precious laws of thermodynamics, please realize that neither the collective consciousness of the world nor you (nor I) know everything about energy, and where and how you can harness it.

Please understand, I don't intend to break any of your beloved laws, nor destroy the subject of science as we know it. I'm not telling you that it's possible to create energy that wasn't there before (since it can't be done), and I'm certainly not telling you that it's possible to destroy it (since that certainly can't be done). What I am saying is that it is possible to obey the laws of thermodynamics and conservation of energy while designing/building a device capable of generating more energy out than is put in, i.e. result in 100%+ efficiency ratings. If you didn't already know that there are devices that can demonstrate this, 1) You poor soul, 2) Stop behaving like a sheep, and 3) if you need links and just do not want to go find this on your own, tell me. Read on...

Now, I've been studying over-unity generation by means of magnetic fields for some years now (if I had to guess I'd say at least 5 or 6), and what I've discovered from that research could prove my point to some of you skeptics out there (please note that if you can disprove my reasoning, to PLEASE DO SO! The only thing I don't like more than being wrong is being wrong when someone who could've told me so, never did! Much obliged). My points are clear, simple to understand, and...most likely go against everything you the dear reader have ever been taught about free energy. That being said...here they are, my points explaining why magnetism is a very reliable pathway to pursue over-unity:

- 1) For those who've never thought to make the connection, magnetism is not to be considered bound to the Laws of Thermodynamics. It doesn't break any chemical bonds to transfer energy, it doesn't burn any sort of conventional fuel to function; rather it can just sit there, attracting or repelling certain materials around it. Though there are basic similarities between Thermodynamics and Magnetodynamics, THEY ARE DEFINITELY NOT THE SAME.

- 2) Think of all magnets as batteries; containers of magnetic energy, energy that can be used, harnessed, charged, recharged, and ultimately used up. Granted, these batteries are worlds apart from your average AAs in terms of raw energy output per frame of time, energy storage capabilty, as well as charge maintenance (what's the lifespan of a magnet again, 300, 400 years? Truth is, we don't really know), to name a few aspects. Once again, though, make no mistake- magnets still have differences in behaviour as compared to conventional chemical batteries, but this type of thinking does bring us one step closer to realizing the magnet's importance to the over-unity system.

- 3) Like gravity, not absolutely everything is known about magnetic fields. In the situation of science, just because the general public says you can't does not necessarily mean you can't. (Yeah, I'm telling you all right now that just because people say you can't fly, doesn't mean you can't!...ah, sarcasm)

I want you all to look at the reality of such a device, though. If it is based on magnetism, no, it won't be able to generate energy forever. Certainly for hundreds of years, Lord willing, but not forever. I realize that magnetic fields deteriorate, change with temperature (to the point of complete field loss at high temp), and can be kind of...tricky. But harnessing all, almost all, or at least some of the magnetic fields of a magnet-based electricity generating system can, I believe, make efficiency ratings jump to the 120% category at least. Magnets can store enormous amounts of energy in an impossibly small amount of space, their atoms can maintain spin for an amazingly long period of time, and I do believe that even after thousands of years of messing with magnetism, mankind still has much to learn about Magnetodynamics.

Before I go...there are forums that talk about such things as free energy, overunity (hereafter to be referred to as OU), and perpetual motion, and if you the dear reader comes across any advocating the existence of such things, I want you to remember a few things about these people:

- First, if they're truly searching for OU, and therefore not a sucker, they won't care about money. One of the main philosophies of the OU advocate is that money isn't as important as knowledge. The idea and what it can do for mankind far outweighs how much it is worth.

- Second, your average OU advocate will be able to tell you, personally, that their device works, how it works, and if they don't already have the designs uploaded to their site, will be only too happy to send them upon request. Granted, there are those who have such devices, yet refuse to show designs, claiming that "humanity is not yet ready" or some such. Don't worry; there are always those far too caught up in hatred to help anyone; it's inescapable. Just remember that there are other devices, other methods, to achieving OU.

-Third, remember that you might not always be reading something written by a Ph.D, and might instead be reading something written by a relatively uneducated (on the subject, anyway) Average Joe (i.e. me). Remember, the importance isn't on the money, it's on the idea. The idea. Training is irrelevant. Formal education is irrelevant. Fame and infamy are both, you guessed it, irrelevant. What matters is what you can bring to the situation; the improvement(s) you can make, the contributions you can offer. Everything else? Does. Not. Matter.

- Fourth, and very important: The OU crowd has a collective belief that many governments, organizations, and corporations know for a fact that free energy exists, but instead of telling the public about it, rather strive constantly to make sure that the secret never ever EVER gets out. Yes, they'll let us have our sites and forums, but they'll silence us if/when they get the chance, they'll destroy/confiscate our inventions, and they'll blackmail us till we "admit" that our devices don't work, shaming us till the end of eternity. The OU advocate, it would seem, is like a modern-day Gallileo; pioneer in beliefs and technology that run contrary to what is publicly accepted and "normal." Of course, please also note that though OU advocates cry "conspiracy, conspiracy," we don't believe absurd things like extraterrestrial intervention or anything like that. Things like UFOs, we chalk up to Area 51, and the United States' constant pressing goal to be at least one step ahead of everyone else.

- Fifth. OU, as its' community sees it, is something to be shared with the world. Not just with the US, EU, Japan, Canada, etc. etc. No no, not with a few select countries, THE ENTIRE WORLD. All of mankind can benefit from OU. Some may even be able to argue that the development and construction of OU devices will inevitably make currency...obsolete!

- Sixth, and final, I promise. OU Device Inventors usually DO NOT WANT TO BECOME FAMOUS! Usually they just want people to know that they the inventor invented the device, they DON'T want people to write biographies and movies and TV specials and what have you! People like Tom Bearden or Robert George Adams (God rest his soul) are simply two "famous" people belonging to a vast community of conceptualists and inventors, spanning several countries; the US, France, Australia, Germany, and Ireland, as well as many other nations, have many fervent members, all researching, building, or demonstrating devices that harness OU.

What it all comes down to, is that the OU community wants to help the world. We see the rich, the poor, and all in-between, and we wish to help. If you step on us enough, we won't like you very much, and therefore won't care to give you our idea(s). But if you honestly ask us, we'll give you all the info you want, because we want to help you. We seek to change the world and make it a better place. We may not be able to do it ourselves, and we realize that. But since we can't do it, we'll rely on our inventions, (which usually happens to be our life's work) to ensure the future of our families and those around us. Refuse us fame, we don't care. We just want to see future generations living as comfortably, if not more comfortably, than ourselves.

Keep to the fight, everyone.
Jikei (please note that since it's 430 in the AM, I'm not at my peak efficiency at proofreading right now. Thanks)