Pawns in a Global Game of Chess

A major realization that has occurred as a result of this Russo-Georgian conflict/war is that regardless of which side one takes in support of one entity and condemnation of the other, one thing that becomes very clear is that a small nation stands virtually no chance of success without using larger allies as a crutch. We don't have to strain at the modern political landscape on our planet to understand just how empires and large states can use smaller sovereign nations to become pawns in the global game of chess. Throughout history, large empires such as the Greeks, Persians, Romans, Mongols, Arabs, Turks, and those existing in recent years like the Axis Powers of the Third Reich, or even the Soviet Union, all use small vassal states as either buffers to retain regional control and isolation, or as expansionist entities meant to increase global control of resources and assets. During the expansion phase of the Roman Empire, Rome found itself at odds with another regional power in the Mediterranean, known as Carthage. The entity that retained control over the shipping routes and ports of the Mediterranean would become the most powerful empire in the world. After numerous conflicts, and three bitter wars, Rome gained control over all the former Carthaginian territory in the South and East Mediterranean. What was once a region of competing states became an entity that controlled the destiny of the whole Mediterranean. The eventual success of the Romans, however, at the start of the First Century, would not have been possible had the Romans not sought allies in the Mediterranean who were tired of the tax policies and limited protection of Carthage. Having retained these allies, Rome found it easier to control the region once Carthage was out of the picture. As the Roman Empire expanded to its greatest extent (around 115 CE), they found their expansion checked by the arguably equally powerful Persian Empire. The Persians were much more powerful than the Carthaginians, and Rome was forced to acknowledge that there was no way the Empire could extend any further East. In order to protect itself against the Persian menace, and insure that territorial integrity of the Eastern region, Rome signed a treaty with Persia to retain Armenia, and the Mesopotamian regions as buffer states. These countries were given Persian rulers, who happened to pay tribute to Rome. Yet, the situation was not ideal, and the extent that Rome and Persia tried to underhandedly exploit the Buffer States was frequent and increasingly more meddlesome. The states in question also recognized the power they possessed in having both Empires vying for control, even though officially speaking of truce. Armenia, as an example, constantly attempted to use its power to control its own destiny, often trying to instigate the Persians or Romans, depending on the entity they felt was more capable of defending its interests. Often times, different princes, in what amounted to feudal-like regions, would take opposite sides in support of a given empire. Sometimes, this strategy would work, and Armenia would be rewarded by a reduction in taxes, or even autonomy. Other times, this would result in a bitter war between the Empires with Armenia becoming a battlefield.

With just one example from global history in mind, we can now look at the current Russo-Georgian conflict with an enlightened perspective and a window into understanding the perpetuation of history due to the human condition. The current expansionist policies of Russia can be likened to the growing power of the Roman Empire. In Russia's case, its influence was far greater and extended to a larger area during the height of the Soviet Union. Under the guise of Communism/Socialism, the Soviets had extended their control from East Germany to China and most of South-East Asia. Upon the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia's influence was considerably reduced on the world stage. Yet, the last 15 years have seen Russia making a resounding comeback, partly due to the price of oil providing rapid economic growth, and also to the strengthening partnership with Europe and Asia. As Russia's economic situation has improved, they have realized that as they were going through countless hardships and post-communist changes, NATO, with a significant United States control was slowly marching towards Russia's back door. Ultimately, the need for oil and regional control of the Middle East by the West eventually sent alarm bells in Moscow. Without exercising any control and influence, Russia would lose out on many lucrative resources and opportunities for future economic growth. This lead to closer ties with Iran, and an attempt at rekindling strategic partnerships with many of the former Soviet Republics. Yet, with the Western Democratic reform movements that swept through Ukraine and Georgia, Russia become painfully aware of the need for regional influence and a reanimation of their global inspirations.



As is frequently said, the death of the Soviet Union lead Russia into Hibernation, but the sleeping bear is awakening and hungry. Diving deeper in this analogy, having slept off the winter, the bear now sees his territory brimming with hungry bears, particularly one that seems intent on limiting his movement. He knows that even in his limited area, he has resources that the other bears covet. In Russia's case, Georgia is the geographic boundary that Russia must retain control to continue on its prosperous rout. Having allied itself with Iran and Armenia, Russia needs to maintain expansion in Georgia to retain regional control of the Caucuses and thus the bridge to extend into Iran. At the moment however, control of Georgia is in the hands of the West, and thanks in large part to the East-West Baku-Ceyhan pipeline (see previous post here), the West cannot lose influence in the region. Since Georgia is so critical to the interests of both Russia and the West, it has become a buffer state like Armenia used to be under the Roman and Persian Empires (also happens to be just north of it as well). The Russians, knowing they have little direct control in Georgia proper, decided to extend their helping hand to the small semi-autonomous states within Georgia that border Russia. Abkhazia and South Ossetia, being the lesser pawns in the game, decided that siding with Russia would help maintain their independence (they should have talked to the Chechens) far more effectively than allowing Georgia to control their destiny. Moreover, both provinces feel as though they have economically more to gain when Russia exerts power and influence in the region. As for Armenia, it recognizes that siding with the Russians may be fraught with danger, but the chance for economic improvement and geopolical stability is a difficult proposition to discard. Knowing they have a hostile neighbor to their east (Azerbaijan) and a much stronger and, in their eyes, malevolent neighbor to the West (Turkey) they feel the necessity to maintain a strategic partnership with a near-by power whose strength is much greater then both their neighbors'. The partnership with Russia isn't just unilateral however. Russia in turn exploits Armenia knowing that they have an ally in the region completely dependent on them. This dependence on Russia provides Armenia with some feelings of importance. Yet, if history is any indication, the perceived power that small nations have is as illusory as unicorns and rainbow gold. As soon as the nature of the situation changes, or the economics shift, those small nations that hold so tightly to those in power will be readily discarded. As with Georgia's current crisis, the expectation that the West would come to Georgia's aid militarily must have been tempting but as it turns out, the West can only attempt to verbally intimidate Russia. Russia has fuel control over the West, and no amount of barking will amount to significant changes. The West, especially the United States in recent years, have continuously promised more then they could deliver to pawns all around the world. When the Kurds were promised greater freedom, and delivered on their insurrection against Saddam Hussein, the West, enjoying the oil riches, allowed the Kurds to suffer the consequences with little sympathy. Even now, the West exploits the Kurds, while concurrently manipulating Iraqi and Turkish politics to prevent the Kurds from gaining greater autonomy. We talk of the importance of territorial integrity, yet, find ourselves supporting Taiwan's calls for independence and allowing bases in countries that in some cases are completely hostile (Guantanamo Bay, Cuba for example). Yet, this is how the work of empires is done. Through hypocrisy and the perpetuation of disingenuous ideals, the powerful forces of the world manipulate the game of world politics through sheer audacity and people's stupidity.

Considering the Chess analogy, many of the small nations in the world, already described as pawns, can be readily sacrificed as long as the game proceeds to it's conclusive end (checkmate occurs when on nation controls the resources of the whole world). There are some people who feel as though there is a world order that controls the nature of the game and seems almost omnipotent in its actions. Yet, that would be like assuming that the purpose of chess is to discard all the pieces and allow only the Queen and Rooks to remain in the game protecting one's King and attempting to attack the other's. The world is a lot more complex, and the outcome of the future as variable as the strategy and movement from one chess game to another. It should further be noted that the pawns are not always useless and can at times help protect the King and other times, hinder an escape. Similarly, many of the small nations of the world rely on their importance towards controlling regional affairs, and if the situation is favorable and remains constant, then they are rewarded, but if there's a negative turn in their position, they are the first to suffer the consequences of discord and strife. Those of us who come from areas of the world that are constantly changing hands, grow to become both cynical at the prospects, or idealistic towards a final change for the better. Yet, economics and the human condition will generally collude to prevent the lesser nations from attaining degrees of freedom and independence outside the protection of the much larger empires. Ultimately, the illusion we harbor at having freedom of choice, and control over our destinies is just that, a complete and total illusion. We are prey to the whims of both nature and human nature. But the one ray of hope from attaining this view is that although our destinies aren't under our direct control, we can investigate our position and be true to ourselves. We can allow our minds to probe our place in the fabric of society, and although disconcerting at times, how many creatures on this planet have that ability? How many people can truly say that conflict and warfare in the world have shown them that although we're at the mercy of forces greater than us, we can maintain degrees of freedom and expression in our thoughts and our daily actions? For all we know, an asteroid can collide with Earth and lead to our extinction. Would all the wars that we fight, and all the petty skirmishes over economic resources matter? Sadly, those who have the luxury to realize such things also happen to generally live in places of peace and stability.

The Georgia-Russia Conflict Explained

Ultimately, this conflict comes down to territorial integrity and whether a sovereign nation has the right to uphold it when separatists within the internationally recognized boundaries declare de-facto independence.

In Georgia's case, the country that we know of as Georgia is actually a commonwealth of a number of republics. Recently, because of the geopolitical games to control the region, Georgia has been fighting an internal conflict between ethno-linguistic groups that want to remain allied with Russia, and others that prefer to ally with NATO and the West. During this conflict, both the United States and Russia have sent special forces to control the region. Georgia is vital to both Russian and NATO (read US) interests. At the moment, Georgia is being used as a corridor to transport oil from the Caspian Sea port of Baku in Azerbaijan, to the Turkish Mediterranean port of Ceyhan for consumption in the West. Similarly, Georgia is vital to Russia's strategic interests with Iran. Armenia, sharing the southern border of Georgia is pro-Russian (although there's a heavy opposition that wishes to break those ties and move closer to NATO) and has a north-south fuel corridor with Iran. By gaining control over Georgia, Russia can link itself to Iran through rail, energy supply, and various other economic resources. Similarly, by limiting Russia's role, NATO and the West can maintain a strong East-West corridor, thereby checking Russia's regional influence. At its heart though, this region of the world has seen its fare share of conflict between superpowers. When the Roman and Persian empires fought to a stalemate, it was Armenia and Georgia that were frequently used as buffer states. When the Turks and Byzantine were at odds, it was again the same region that was critical for power and control.

The modern problem also stems from the borders of Georgia being drawn up by Stalinist policy. In essence, the Caucuses is a very culturally heterogenous region, with various ethno-linguistic groups vying for political independence. As many remember from the wars in Chechnya and to a lesser extent Daghestan in Russia, as well as these current conflicts with South Ossetia and Abkhazia in Georgia, the region is highly volatile and prone to constant dissatisfaction. As an Armenian, I can attest to similar problems when the Armenian province of Nagorno-Karabagh in Azerbaijan tried to break away and assert their political independence. Ultimately, it lead to a still-ongoing conflict and although the region is under Armenian control, the political situation is highly charged. Any regional conflict like this in Georgia can easily escalate into a larger conflict with these other republics.

One thing that must be understood is that the media is going to maintain bias towards NATO and the West. The actual spark of this conflict was Georgia's surprise attack on South Ossetia's capital, thinking the world would be distracted, and the expectation of Russia's excessive response. The thinking in Georgia was that with Russia's severe aggression against its vital interests, the West would come down hard and it would cause a major diplomatic rift. The player in all this that goes unmentioned are the Americans who've sent special forces in Georgia. It would be cynical to assume that Georgia was coerced into a response thinking that they would capture South Ossetia (although internationally recognized as Georgian territory, many of its citizens hold Russian passports and are therefore like their brothers in North Ossetia, Russian citizens), but with the vital importance of regional control, this is sadly the typical international chess game, with the expense being paid by innocent civilians. It's also obvious that the provisional passports that Russia has granted to the Ossets occurred knowing that this conflict was oncoming and Russia needed an excuse to claim they were just defending their citizens. It must further be understood that in no means is Russia innocent of exploiting the situation but it's to provide a better framework for explaining the conflict in the region. It can also be argued that the Soviet policies of Russification are a major factor for so many ethno-linguistic groups allying with Russia, but as can be seen from the conflict in Chechnya, it wasn't exactly beneficial to Russia or completely effective. What Abkhazia, Ajaria, and South Ossetia, have in common is that although they're provinces of Georgia, they see their future closely aligned with Russia instead of the West. Since they're semi-independent and have de-facto control over their regions, they feel that they shouldn't need to be subservient to Georgia's pro-Western president, Saakashvili, and the West. His Rose revolution, though quite important for regional control of the West, is actually looked upon as disastrous by the opposing provinces. When you have such a culturally heterogenous region that's also of great strategic importance, you're going to have all sides attempting to exploit the region for their economic benefit. It comes down to simple economics and geopolitical control.

Attempting to recreate the stage that this conflict is set is somewhat of a difficult task, but in doing so, the nature of the cycle of violence and geo-politics in this region becomes clear. From the map below, the semi-autonomous provinces of Georgia are indicated in red. Both Abkhazia and South Ossetia border Russia, and more importantly prove strategic in Russia's influence within Georgia. Currently, both the Baku-Ceyhan pipeline (operated by British Petroleum and highlighted in Blue) and the Baku-Supsa Pipeline travel across a narrow central corridor of Georgia, before diverging. The Baku-Ceyhan then proceeds through Turkey, to the Mediterranean port of Ceyhan, while the Baku-Supsa terminates near a town Sochi, in another semi-autonomous province of Georgia known as Ajaria. Sochi is an important Black Sea port for the Caucases region, allowing the fuel to be transported on barges that are sent across the world. This is known as the East-West corridor and is already a well established fuel-transit system. Yet, there's also a natural gas pipeline just recently built that connects Iran to Armenia. As can also be seen, there's an additional natural gas pipeline that emanates from Russia, connecting to Georgia. If the two natural gas pipelines can be linked (the hard to see broken yellow line potentially passing through central Armenia), this becomes a valuable North-South corridor that benefits Russia, Iran, as well as Armenia. Even though Georgia could potentially benefit from this North-South Pipeline, simple economics dictate that the benefit they receive from the East-West routes, along with other economic stimulus funds from the West are too good to give up.

As this conflict escalates, and Russia forces its heavy hand towards manipulating the present situation to exert greater regional control over such a strategic area of the world, world criticism that the Russian response is disproportionate will increase. Yet, where was the same response when Israelis were bombing Palestine? Why were Bush and Company silent as Palestinians were running for their lives? Why did they allow the Sudanese government to ravage their own population through genocide while remaining relatively silent? These hypocritical world leaders now assume that because this conflict disrupts their attempts at regional hegemony in the Caucuses, the world will forget their silence under similar situations involving such morally ambiguous allies. They ultimately have no voice on the world stage, and their words will continue falling on deaf ears in Moscow because they showed their true colors in the silence under similar circumstances. Because of such geopolitical games of chess, peace is going to remain a commodity that is quite difficult to attain.

Credibility Trumps Credulity -- Part I (Introduction)

One of the most difficult concepts to comprehend and relate to other people is the importance of critical thinking, skepticism, and the accessibility of evidence in determining the plausibility of various theories. Often times, we come to feel as though we have attained a very cohesive and complex theory and choose to focus squarely on information that supports our preconceived notions. In other instances, we may be introduced to theories that may superficially seem deep and thought provoking, perhaps even superior to accepted notions, and yet, due to our need to seek reinforcement for our preconceived theories, we are lead astray from reality. We can construct an artificial reality that is strengthened by falsely reinforced information and loaded notions that we extract from our misguided observations and preemptive filtering of accessible information. In our current day and age of information accessibility, we are consistently bombarded with a gradient of relevant information ranging from sources that are at best dubious to those that are well researched and supported. Some of this information is present as a means to misguide and misdirect credulous individuals, while others inadvertently present false and highly misleading data. Whether the data is statistical, material, figurative, or evidential in nature, verifying it, and maintaining a healthy degree of skepticism often interferes with our inherent need to reinforce our preconceived notions, no matter how misinformed and misguided they may be. Ultimately, it is up to us to develop critical thinking skills, and strive to constantly apply a healthy degree of skepticism towards any information that we encounter. There are various tools at our disposal to break down the information into manageable packets, or quanta, and through our rigorous internal filters, we'll be better able to assess given data. These are skills that are rarely taught to us, especially in the United States, and it takes a great deal of work and meticulous usage to break the bonds of credulous thinking and eventually come to think critically of various pieces of information we encounter.

The most important tool that we use to properly assess a situation is the scientific method. As any primary school pupil should learn, the scientific method involves certain steps that help us uncover natural processes. In short, the process involves the identification of a problem, observing and collecting data, posing a hypothesis based on the data, performing an experiment on the data, analyzing the relevant information gained, and reassessing the hypothesis to see if it holds up to the data. Generally, the first step to the scientific method involves a question. For example, why are the oldest hominid bones found in East Africa? Once we have the question, we can start to research the problem and attempt to form a hypothesis. In the given example, we can start by looking at the paleobotanical record of East Africa during the last few million years. We can further use comparative anatomy to view the changes in hominid development during the last few millions years. Further research and data can include fossilized pollen, geological changes, climatic differences, etc. What we'll see is that the ecology of East Africa during the critical time of bipedal development changed from relatively wet, to dryer conditions. What was once forested areas, were developing into grasslands. We can hypothesis then, that perhaps the reason the oldest hominid bones were found in East Africa was because the climatic changes forced certain apes to adapt to grasslands, whilst others were forced to retreat deeper into the forests. Since performing an experiment in this case would be impossible given the time constraints we have to deal with (we don't have millions of years of time to research this), we can continue building evidence and collecting data to further allow us to determine whether the new data will help reinforce our hypothesis. At this point, we can look at various hypotheses and use the growing evidence to rule some of them out. The greatest aspect of the scientific method is that it allows a hypothesis to be discarded when the evidence counters it. Using the hominid example, we can look at the various hypotheses attempting to explain why apes in that region of Africa evolved bipedalism and certain characteristic traits. Could it have anything to do with adapting towards a life in and near inland lakes (Aquatic Ape Hypothesis)? We can then ask, if the climate changed in East Africa, it must have had an effect in other areas of Africa. Is there evidence for evolutionary changes in other species during this time period? Was there an increase in animals that inhabit grasslands? In any case, the growing body of research into this problem allows us to come closer to answering the initial question, and discarding hypotheses that fall apart on further reflection. The Aquatic Ape Hypothesis is one of those that proved to fall apart and the many holes in the hypothesis are mentioned in the following link. Often times with science, we don't have a quick and easy solution to any question, and in fact, answering one question often leads us to a path of asking many more in return. Yet, it's the curiosity and rigorous tools of the scientific method that allows us to chip away at our ignorance and attempt to understand the world around us.

Considering that no single person has the time or resources to investigate every single aspect of the natural world, we must come to realize that we are dependent on the work and theories of others to help build a case for any investigation into nature. In this instance, a second tool that helps us critically analyze a given situation is the credibility of the individual making a claim. Many of these individuals have spend their lives on a specific question and thus have the greatest knowledge in their relevant field. Yet, it's only those individuals that have used the rigors of the scientific method who truly stand out as experts. One can spend their whole life attempting to explain hurricanes and tornadoes as acts of god, or caused by invisible cherubs at specific regions of the troposphere, but without the background in meteorology, their explanations are often completely groundless. Similarly, many so called "experts" with little background in the sciences will analyze the Egyptian Pyramids and determine that there is no possible way that humans could have built them. Their assumptions stem from the lack of technological tools that the Egyptians possessed, or the lack of political organization, or any number of other possible factors. Yet, without having to look to the heavens, there are many clues as to how the pyramids were constructed within standard Egyptian society and culture. Just because it took us thousands of years to relearn the methods, and due to our lack of hindsight as far as the organizational skills that Egyptian Civilization possessed during the Old Kingdom, many were and still are quick to dismiss the fact that such a feat was possible without any extra-terrestrial or supernatural influence. It's mainly thanks to the tireless work of actual experts, such as Egyptologists, Engineers, Architects, Computer Scientists, and even comparative sociologists, who have all contributed to our advancing understanding of early Egyptian civilizations and the true extent of their capabilities.

A third tool we can use when critically analyzing a given piece of information is Evidence. We should strive to ask ourselves what kind of evidence exists that helps support the given information. Does the evidence come from credible sources? Is it reproducible? Can we see this evidence for ourselves if we search hard enough or attain enough knowledge in the given field to uncover it? Are there independent sources that we can corroborate the information with? Feelings and thoughts are not enough to be considered evidence. As in law, the burden of proof falls upon those presenting the evidence that refutes the body of information that we have. Sure, some pieces of evidence prove to completely turn a theory on its side, while others are methodological errors, such as Cold Fusion, that prove impossible to reproduce. When accepting a given kernel of information as fact, the line of reasoning and rational thinking is our own to demarcate. It comes down to our educated and highly critical filters that determine whether a given quanta of information is reliable, credible, and ultimately, backed by evidence that can ultimately be falsified. Following this line of thinking, the second segment of this post will focus on the conspiracy theories that even the most educated and well intentioned people may hold as truth.

Ji,Jir, and Jin -- The Generic Gender Neutral Pronouns

Having been extremely frustrated at determining whether it's appropriate to use He or She, Him or Her, His or Her (known as the 3rd person singular pronoun), as opposed to they/them/their, one comes to realize that English, being the flexible language that it is, needs a third person singular generic gender neutral pronoun. Although pedantic, it's grammatically incorrect to use their, theirs, or they because those pronouns ultimately represent plurality. However, one can use He or Him in a generic sense, knowing that in this day and age of sex neutrality, it can be offensive to women knowing that any female reference is usurped. We do still use the generic man, when referring to human beings, but the use of it is also declining. With all these indications in place, it seems necessary to create a new word to function as the gender neutral pronoun. In the defense of grammatic purists, there have been attempts at creating such a word, but as is often the case, necessity doesn't always beget usage.

Cutting to the proverbial chase, it becomes necessary and vital for the English language to use the Gender Neutral Pronoun in the generic sense. I propose using Ji (pronounced Jee), Jir, and Jin with some provided examples to further illustrate their usage. The first sentence will use the grammatically incorrect form, the second, the grammatically correct but awkward form, and the final will correct those with the newly created usage.

When a visitor comes to your house, you should always offer them a refreshment.
When a visitor comes to your house, you should always offer him or her a refreshment.
When a visitor comes to your house, you should always offer jir a refreshment.

A student always knows if they are capable of exceeding a teacher's expectations.
A student always knows if he or she is capable of exceeding a teacher's expectations.
A student always knows if ji is capable of exceeding a teacher's expectations.

The antique dealer bought their purchase on Tuesday.
The antique dealer bought his or her purchase on Tuesday.
The antique dealer bought jin purchase on Tuesday.

Finally, even the reflexive pronoun of Himself or Herself could very easily be applied as Jirself to maintain gender neutrality.

When one thinks of themselves as hilarious, they are often unfunny.
When one thinks of himself or herself as hilarious, he or she is often unfunny.
When one thinks of jirself as hilarious, ji is often unfunny.

As this last example clearly illustrates, the most effective, and efficient method of expression would use the gender neutral pronoun. This way, many grammatical mistakes can be avoided, and the charges that the English language artificially maintains a sexist bend can start to slowly fade. In a simpler world, people would not be as sensitive to the whims of language, and many feminist philologists would just as likely continue using the masculine as a generic gender neutral pronoun. Yet, because of the complexities in our society, and our continuously evolving sense of morality, behavior, and the correlative speech patterns involved, we must make be willing to make necessary adjustments to the language. English is a living, breathing, constantly evolving language, and therefore, flexible enough to incorporate sensible linguistic parameters throughout its ever-changing course.

Napoleon's Causality Cascade -- comte de La Pérouse

As part of a serial exploration of causality cascades that have profoundly changed the world, this first exposition will focus on a man very few people have heard of, but who may have indirectly changed the course of European History. For some definition, as described in a previous post, a causality cascade is an event that in perspective has snowballed into a force that effects the outcome of numerous subsequent events, and ultimately the course of history throughout the world. To fully embrace the concept, we must first have an elementary understanding of chaos theory. In essence, it's a mathematical theory that describes the behavior of complex systems in relation to the passage of time. For example, in a well known phenomenon called the butterfly effect, even the minimal perturbations of a butterfly's wings may effect the weather around the world. Similarly, a causality cascade can be thought of as a segment of chaos theory, but involving human related perturbations. Often these can be thought of as "what if" scenarios. For example, what if one of the early plots to assassinate Adolph Hitler was successful? How different would the world be today? Or in a related note, what if Hitler had been accepted to art school? Would he still have grown disillusioned? If we look at less influential individuals in the course of human history, we're less certain of their impact, whether directly or indirectly. For example, staying with our WWII example, what if we focus on the life of a Soviet soldier who escaped a sniper and survived? What if this lucky soldier had instead died? Now, assuming that this is a person who was not pivotal in any direct way to the course of human history, would the world be any different? In this instance, it's impossible to tell because perhaps his children or grandchildren somehow contributed to the world as we know it. Yet, it's also likely that perhaps there would be almost no perceptible difference in world history.

Our current Causality Cascade will focus on Napoleon and a little known explorer named Jean-François de Galaup, comte de La Pérouse. La Perouse was a French naval officer and explorer who idolized Capt. James Cooke, and also sailed in his footsteps around the Pacific. The passage between Japan and the Russian island of Sakhalin is named in his honor. In addition, he explored Alaska, California, and many Pacific Islands. In Samoa, he barely escaped injury, but a few of his crew were killed when they encountered hostile Samoans. His crew had a significant proportion of scientists, and he was highly successful in his mapping surveys. Sadly, after sending most of his writings and charts to England with some of his crew, he disappeared never to be heard from again.

The fascinating aspect of this story is that Napoleon Bonaparte was one of the sailors who applied for La Perouse's expedition to circumnavigate the world and help complete and complement the expeditions of Captain Cooke. At the time, Napoleon was a 16 year old second lieutenant from Paris' military academy seeking to serve in the navy, instead of the army, because of his prodigious knowledge of artillery and mathematics. These skills lent well towards a naval career, and had Napoleon made the short list on Le Perouse's circumglobal expedition, European history would probably have been much different. Would Napoleon have been one of those sailors killed by Samoans? Would he have disappeared along with the rest of La Perouse's crew? Would he have been one of the sailors sent to England with the charts and notes of La Perouse's? Had these events taken place, would the metric system be as wide spread around the world as it is today? Would the rise of nationalism take place at the rate it did? Without such a nationalistic uprising, would both World Wars have been delayed or even prevented? This is a true causality cascade. With Napoleons entry into La Perouse's expedition denied, his course in life was surely changed, and subsequently, the course of human history most definitively so.

Sexism not a major factor in Clinton's loss

As the Democratic Presidential Nomination draws to a close, Barack Obama emerges as the bruised and battered nominee who must now face McCain and the Conservative establishment. The tough drawn-out battle between Hillary Clinton and Obama highlighted many factors that play significant roles in people's perception of political candidates and their willingness to generate enthusiasm and a genuine social movement. As the Democratic Party finds itself deeply divided, pundits, analysts, and apologists are tearing themselves apart trying to identify the reasons for Clinton's loss and Obama's success. Often, gender plays a pivotal role in people's perception as to what lead to Clinton's loss. Few are naive enough to believe that gender was an absent issue, but the leading perception is that it was a large determining factor for people's embrace of Obama. Apparently, because Clinton showed leadership and political savvy equal to any male running as a candidate, people viewed her in a negative light thanks to our gender biases. This idea, although perhaps partly true was not the cause of Clinton's ultimate downfall. Her failure was directly related to her disingenuous, manipulative, and politics-as-usual behavior. She pretended to represent the middle class by drinking beer, taking shots of hard liquor, claiming she was a gun-rights supporter, and other such antics. Sure, the "white collar worker" represents a large segment of the Democratic base, but similarly, others were easily able to see through her false image. It can also be argued that many women supported her cause, not for her ideological views, but for her gender. Many in fact admit to feeling sympathy for her as a victim of marital discord, and therefore engender a false sense of support. Conversely, although many African Americans support Obama, their support of him comes not only for his race, but for his message and issues. Initially, when the race for the Democratic Presidential Nominations was just beginning, many pundits actually assumed the African American vote would go to Clinton because of Bill Clinton's legacy. Yet, as the contest progressed, people came to realize just how manipulative Clinton was in achieving her goals. Her demeanor and perception went beyond a politician seeking Presidency, to an individual capable of doing or saying anything to justify their goals. Her gender therefore was not a major reason for her loss (after all, she had the support of women, Jews, and working class Caucasians).

It must be stated however that Obama does not automatically receive a passing grade because he was less manipulative and politically motivated then Clinton. He is still a politician, an individual willing to compromise his core values to achieve some sort of coalition. No politician is beyond compromising certain views to gather large political support. Our electoral and political system, as it stands, still leaves much to be desired. We are not a democracy until a better form of representation is allowed. Further, with only two political parties, all we receive are sterilized issues that choose to divide instead of unify. Ultimately, the poor will remain poor, the rich will continue to accumulate wealth, and the status quo will remain. A society is defined by its weakest link, and we should be ashamed that so many Americans are poor and uneducated. A fear of the elite is just a small part of the disease of ignorance that has crept up in our system. When Clinton tossed around the word "elite" as though it were a negative thing, her true nature became clear for many. She knew that she was courting the uneducated vote of a a segment of the American population that has yet to embrace the values of the 21st century. Much of their support for Clinton came with the undercurrent of racism and Clinton knowingly used this for her advantage. Thinking of states such as West Virginia, with the core representing the supposed "working class white" votes, their racial biases were not subtle when interviewed about their support for Clinton. Many not only showed racial biases, but as an uniformed populace, bought into the belief that Obama was a practicing Muslim, and therefore a threat to America. It's not as though Clinton's campaign went out of their way to dissuade such intolerant beliefs. For a person willing to do anything and everything necessary to gain a foothold in the highest position of power smells of desperation and selfishness. Yet, her role still remains crucial in helping mend the fallout from these battles. She can fight hard to repair the damage to her reputation, or allow the party to fall apart and thus help usher in four more years of idiocy.

Arbitrary Day

Considering the fact that not every topic on this blog will be long and pedantic, I'd like to delve into something slightly less serious than the usual fare.

Arbitrary Day should be an international holiday that celebrates absolutely nothing. Just an arbitrary day off from the normal grind of the work week. It doesn't much matter what country one lives in, there are bound to be months in need of a day off. In the US, we have June, August, and since Columbus Day was rightfully recanted, October, without a proper holiday. Perhaps a special web site should be created that allows people to vote for the month and day they would prefer to have as a holiday. This special vote can be cast a year or so before the year of the vote. The day with the greatest amount of votes (a true Democracy) would then become Arbitrary Day. People can choose to celebrate Arbitrary Day in any fashion they desire, whether it's a day off to catch some sun, catch up on a book, establish a family tradition, worship whatever imaginary deity one wishes, etc. I realize this may be a bit of a stretch, but the fact that few will complain with an extra holiday may eventually prove a success.

Quadrennial Milestone and Beyond....

It has now been a day over four years since I initially started this blog. I never had a cohesive strategy as to what direction the articles would flow, or the topics that would be covered. Along the way, just as is the case with any writer, I've been influenced and inspired by vastly different sources. Whether there were books I was reading, movies I was watching, conversations with people both supportive and detractive, or even moments that came out of sheer boredom, there have been countless extrinsic influences that have helped shaped these posts. Some, naturally, are a bit polemic and combative in tone (in the case with religion, spirituality, antiscience, etc.), others are more introspective, while the rest run the gamut from philosophical perspective to scientific understanding, and even the realm of language and grammar. Generally though, the common thread among these blogs is the importance of evidence, critical thinking, testing, reasoning, and ultimately using the scientific method towards achieving a cohesive picture of our place in the universe. Generally, it is possible to develop a comprehensive and fulfilling philosophy that is grounded in reality, and not within some imaginary realm.

From the general tone and direction of the last few months, it has become obvious to regular readers that there's more anger, frustration, fire, and some even call arrogance towards obtuse beliefs and ideas. It must be understood that coercing and indoctrinating an individual who remains ignorant of critical thinking is not difficult, but those who have developed the knowledge and understanding that only empirical processes can reveal are well suited towards navigating these complex lives we lead full of misleading and conflicting information. These topics are not meant to proselitize or convince others of their mistaken notions overnight. First, it is more of a personal catharsis towards developing a wholesome and realistic perspective in life. However, as is often the case when I debate my views, I'm labeled as a fundamentalist, no different then religious zealots out to convince others of their superiority. In fact, there's a law that relates to this illogic called "Blake's Law". It states that the longer a conversation between a believer and atheist lasts, it's almost 100% certain that the believer will call the atheist a fundamentalist. Fortunately, a response to this logical fallacy has already been alluded to by P.Z. Myers (an evolutionary/developmental biologist with one of the most popular science blogs online). His response is:

"The "new atheism" (I don't like that phrase, either) is about taking a core set of principles that have proven themselves powerful and useful in the scientific world — you've probably noticed that many of these uppity atheists are coming out of a scientific background — and insisting that they also apply to everything else people do. These principles are a reliance on natural causes and demanding explanations in terms of the real world, with a documentary chain of evidence, that anyone can examine. The virtues are critical thinking, flexibility, openness, verification, and evidence. The sins are dogma, faith, tradition, revelation, superstition, and the supernatural. There is no holy writ, and a central idea is that everything must be open to rational, evidence-based criticism — it's the opposite of fundamentalism."

Some people are happy living a fantasy and lying to themselves about the nature of the world, but others are curious creatures, investigative in nature, and generally enthused about the universe, reserving imagery and fantasy to realms that are fun in small doses or for amusement, but in normal daily practice, are useless. Every infant is an explorer, intrigued about the surroundings, and investigative in their nature. Once we reach a critical age, perhaps through our educational system, or rigid religious dogma, most of us lose our sense of wonder and fulfillment. We stop asking questions, and settle with substandard answers because we fear the truth.

However, atheists as a whole, although sharing the common bond of living in reality and functioning with a great deal of skepticism when faced with non-testable predictions, are often divided among many other topics. The philosophical views for example among atheists are ubiquitous, with some agnostic about the proper philosophy, while others seek to find philosophical satisfaction from obscure sources. One major disagreement I have with some atheists is the fact that they feel the word "atheist" carries too much negative connotative baggage, and therefor must be discarded for something more pleasant and friendly to the ear. The eminent biologist Richard Dawkins, among a few intellectuals have been pushing for the "brights movement". In this case, they want to relabel atheists as brights, and in doing so, hope that more come to embrace it. In my opinion, this relabeling seems too patronizing and condescending towards those who are ready to release their dogmatic faith-based beliefs. Another disagreement is on how to introduce these concepts to children. Their natural curiosity and imagination should not be limited, but at the same time, they must understand at an early age to be skeptical of certain beliefs may try to reinforce. In this instance, I believe raising children to embrace agnosticism is far more beneficial. A time may come when their perspective develops to the point where they choose to become atheist, but until that moment, they must be able to process the universe skeptically, but less rigidly. Christmas presents, and Easter egg scavager hunts should not be denied to children (after all, childhood has to remain fun and exciting), but they should be told that no matter how convincingly an adult tells them they know the truth, they must always maintain some skepticism. If a child asks if God is real, then a good response from this open perspective would be "to some people, they think God is real, while others, they aren't so sure, but nobody really knows the absolute truth. Anything you believe is equal to anyone else, but remember that the best way to investigate the world around you is through science." Ask any atheist, and their reply to children regarding this God question will be different. Here again, being an atheist doesn't necessarily mean we're all in agreement about everything. Unlike rigid political parties, we're happy to debate our differences, and perspective within a framework of reason, critical thinking, and the exchange of different opinions grounded within reality.

Ultimately, the future direction of this blog is up to the whims of reason, critical thinking, and the countless sources of information that help us maintain a grounded world view. True inspiration does not come from imaginary beings that mean something to someone and remain completely unknown to others, but to our inherent inquisitive human nature. It is our physical and cultural evolution that leads us to reach for goals and objectives far beyond our limited scope. It's the embrace of these ideals that will define our future.

Popularity Contrasts

Upon browsing through the Yahoo Top News Stories section, I happened to notice five very interesting articles under the Most Popular heading.

1) Pilots run out of fuel, pray, land near Jesus sign
2) Lost parrot tells veterinarian his address
3) Daughter of Christian music star killed by car
4) Federal court rules against military gays policy
5) Scientists discover "frogamander" fossil

As one glances through these topics, it's hard not to notice the vastly different stories that these articles contain. The first one involves light aircraft pilots who made an emergency landing and upon preying to God, happened to crash land safely next to a sign praising Jesus. Now it's understandable that during the stress of the event, and the likelihood that their perceived survival was slim, such a coincidence would seem like proof positive that the heavens somehow intervened to save these pilots. One question however is why do so many people praying for similar things end up dead, while these two survived? Some may say that perhaps they had a mission in life that wasn't accomplished, or that God operates mysteriously. Well, as is obvious from previous posts, that's a load of nonsense and justifiably used to convince oneself of their indoctrinated beliefs. The survival of these two pilots was a lucky accident, and they should feel like they won a royal flush in poker, but to assume that God made that possible is laughable at best.

The second story relates to a lost African Grey parrot in Japan that happened to know its own name and address, to the minute detail of the apartment number. What amazes me about the story is the temperment of the parrot. Initially, as it was brought in to a police station, it was silent, but after a few days of reduced stress, and a nurturing environment that had comforts such as food and water, the parrot was able to feel comfortable enough to speak. The fact that they display such differing characteristics and temperments between each other highlights their intelligence. One question that often comes up is the evolutionary advantage of such great mimicry. Why are African Grey parrots so much better at mimicking various sounds, as opposed to other parrots? What is special in their environment that allows the such an evolutionary adaptation? Finally, do their thought processes and vocal mimicries result from their gregarious social nature or sexual selection adaptability?

The third article is unfortunately the most tragic of all. Apparently the 5 year old daughter of a Christian music star was killed when she was accidentally run over by a car driven by her teenage brother. Naturally, the death, and subsequent trauma that this poor child must carry will be a burden upon this unfortunate family. Yet, where was their God to save the poor girl? Was he silent? Was he blind? I don't mean to lessen the tragedy or severity of this event, but was this girl's life any less sacred then the lives of the light aircraft pilots?

The fourth story represents a fragment of the constant battle that minority groups have fought throughout our history. As culture and society progress, groups that were previously mistreated have slowly become accepted and eventually ingrained in society. At one point in time, Native Americans, African-Americans, non land-owners, women, and recently homosexuals have been given negligible, if perhaps limited freedoms in American society. The story mimics the constant battles that each of these groups has had to face for acceptance. At the moment, non-believers such as atheists, agnostics, and others who have replaced irrational faith with evidence based reasoning have become targets for discrimination. Ultimately, as has always been the case, progress will prevail, and after a long drawn out battle of acceptance, groups that are discriminated will eventually become absorbed into the complex social fabric that will become the future. Yet, we are constantly reminded of liberty, equality, and justice for all, while those concepts are applied to a limited number of individuals and seem to always come with a limiting caveat.

Finally, on a more scientific-related article, recent fossil evidence has emerged that links the amphibian family lines of frogs and salamanders together. Evolutionary Biologists have long known that there was a common ancestor, or transitional species that at one point branched to form the respective amphibian families. The evidence is indicated through comparative anatomy, molecular clocks, and other such independent evidence. Finding the missing fossil that links the frog and salamander family together is vitally important in understanding how fossils evolve over time, and more specifically, how the amphibian family branched. It is amazing and literally ground-breaking discoveries like this that leads to our expanded knowledge and understanding of the world around us. No religion, no matter how well intentioned can ever answer questions as properly and beautifully as the scientific method can. The fact that a 290 million year old creature happened to die in favorable circumstances for fossilization, and that nearly a third of a billion years later, a creature with immense reasoning abilities managed to uncover it and trace its origins and subsequent species diversity is humbling and absolutely incredible. Here we are, as a highly intelligent and adaptable primate uncovering fossils of animals that highlights the origins and immense diversity of life on this little blue globe, placing more importance and emphasis to imaginary entities, instead of the awe inspiring physical world around us.

What links these five stories together, besides their popularity is that they involve our deepest seats of emotion. As one story attempts to solidify our faith, another highlights the tragedy of life, a third uncovers the battle for cultural awareness and progress , and finally two that highlight the wonderment of nature (fossils that unravel so many mysteries and animals that mimic our valuable traits). From highs to lows, from understanding to ignorance, these are the contrasting variables that describe our complex human behavior.

Perceived Arrogance

A common criticism often directed at my posts involves my supposed arrogance in elevating science and the scientific method above that of religion and spirituality. Many find it offensive for me to disrespect the personal and deeply held beliefs that they cherish so greatly. They feel that by choosing evidence, in contrast to personal belief, to formulate a philosophical perspective, I am limiting the possibilities around us. Apparently, just because there is no conclusive evidence to support various supernatural phenomenon, the fact that a distant possibility exists for their belief, I should choose to keep an open mind and accept any illogical and unsubstantiated view only because it happens to be unproven. This kind of limited thought is specifically the reason why I address these issues so often, and frequently fight with vigor for the allowance of reason and empirical evidence to dominate our thinking. It is possible for one to develop a well-rounded philosophy without having to divest their reasoning abilities into topics that have no factual basis in our world. Furthermore, as morality and ethics are not constrained and bound by religion, we should all have the freedom to recognize the importance that these beneficial human traits have outside of the dogmatic religious beliefs that have been indoctrinated into our minds. Once we recognize the importance of evidence, empirical thinking, and a strong foundation of data, we can be extremely successful in matters that are critical to our specie's and planet's survival. The future of our world is not connected in any way to the religious or spiritual beliefs of various people, but to the tireless work that we're willing to do improving both the environment and living conditions on this only planet that we've ever called home. No religion, no matter how tolerant, or coercive, has ever been able to usher in an age of progress and wisdom. In fact, progress was done in spite of the archaic and conservative notions that many religions display. As science has expanded our knowledge of the universe, the physical reality that religion allowed humanity to accept has become irrelevant. We now understand many of the mechanisms that are inherent in the processes that govern the laws of the universe, and subsequently our origins and behavior. We don't need religion anymore to give us physical models of the universe. Furthermore, as was mentioned before, we don't need religion to lead moral and ethical lives. The moral current that has evolved through our culture has done so, in spite of religion. We can pick and choose certain passages from various religious texts that appear relevant to the moral behavior of each generation, but cannot take the whole religious text as a moral code. In the Old Testament Bible for example, adultery was punishable by stoning the adulterer to death, and further, slavery, especially the indenture servitude of one's daughters was openly allowed and practiced. Few in this day and age would be willing to maintain many of the practices that were written and glorified in archaic times. So if morality, and physical descriptions are completely unnecessary products of religion in modern times, what other aspects might it provide humans? Well, as was covered in previous posts, comfort and ignorance may allow some people to maintain a rigid mentality when trying to break free of their indoctrinated bonds. Yet, should we be willing to maintain that some people need comfort and ignorance to survive properly in the world? Perhaps a select group of people really do need to lie to themselves, and allow themselves to be fooled into imaginary ideas involving voyeuristic beings claiming to be benevolent when in fact, their jealousy, guarded behavior, and limited rules of engagement constantly indicate their absurd nature.

As is typical, people will look at the harsh tone I have set towards religious views and maintain that I am still foolish and arrogant. They'll claim that not all religions are "bad" and that they do have their uses. Some apologists who are not religious themselves will further insist that these religious beliefs (or even the spiritual nonsense dominating the scene these days in the form of new-age ideas) are important for maintaining cultural continuity and a sense of self worth. Obviously, there may be some importance towards religious belief, but with the knowledge that we have accumulated in the last few centuries, few can deny the power of science over those religious myths.

As far as arrogance goes, I suppose that this stigma will remain with these posts as long as the tone remains as such. Yet, it's important to realize that every progressive thought is often met with arrogance when the masses have yet to embrace concepts that will eventually become widespread. There was a time in our not too distant past when many people believed slavery to be morally justifiable. A few however, dared to maintain that perhaps these African descendants were human beings after all. They did happen to bleed the same color, and although their external and cultural differences were obvious, they also laughed, cried, fought, worked, played and even died like any other human being. The brave individuals that first came forward to maintain this injustice were often harassed, attacked, and even killed for their beliefs. They were often looked upon as arrogant people of "enlightenment" who had read too many books and did not function in the "real world". Even closer to our current time, women were barred from voting because it was felt that they could not make a logical decision (often justified through Biblical passages -- the morality of their time). They viewed women as nothing more then child bearing and rearing cheap labor. It took generations of people, and countless individuals willing to stand up to their beliefs that women's votes also counted, before suffrage was declared universal. Looking at society now, many archaic beliefs will one day seem just as strange and unbelievable. Some of us, through determination, and perhaps a small masochistic streak, maintain our views in the face of so much opposition because we know them to be morally and ethically true. To summarize these views (which some deep ultra liberal, but will one day become the norm -- just as the most conservative view today is absolutely liberal and leftist compared to those 100 years ago), one must understand that there was no special creation involved in our evolution and present appearance on this planet. We ARE a cosmic accident, and although many have a difficult time accepting that, as religion's flame fades away, more and more minds will begin to understand the implications. If we are truly descended from Apes, and share a common biological bond with all the creatures of the Earth (as well as chemical and physical bond with the rest of the universe), then that means no human being is biologically more important than another. In essence, all human beings are an accident of the universe, and an accident of an evolutionary process that blindly moves in any arbitrary direction dictated by the selective pressures in the environment. No wonder this idea is so revolutionary and unsettling to many people. Their special status is suddenly questioned, and we become no different than any other entity in existence. Thinking along these lines often results in the mistaken impression that these views are extremist and no different than the fundamentalism of certain religions sects. However, these views are based on evidence, and if perpetuating the notion that evidence trumps everything else in explaining and understanding our universe, then perhaps an evidence extremist is not such a bad notion. Eventually, the tide will turn, and most people will come to realize the implications of our accidental nature. True arrogance results in our belief that we are superior to other entities such as ethnic groups, and even biological creatures. Our reasoning abilities however do give us a unique perspective on this planet. We have it within us to change this world, either for the better, or for the worse. Either we use our reasoning abilities to answer the mysteries of our universe, or we waste it on imaginary and supernatural phenomenon that exist only in the inventive minds of fearful, credulous individuals.

Einstein's Religion?

There's been a great deal of recent debate and controversy regarding Albert Einstein's views on religion and his personal beliefs on the subject. As a complex human being garnering such a great deal of interest from both academics and lay people alike, Einstein's beliefs are subject to wide speculation and an intrinsic need among many to fully understand his personal views. When one thinks of the quintessential scientist, their mental picture is often that of Einstein, his pipe, absent eyes, puffy white hair, and wrinkly forehead crinkled deep in thought. Therefore, those who support religion and spirituality often look at anything Einstein may have said that might tolerate their views, while others, opposing any form of religion and spirituality often look for evidence that Einstein was an atheist. Both camps feel that any shred of evidence that Einstein may have written, said, or somehow implied defending either view is valuable and groundbreaking. Lately, a lot of Einstein memorabilia has appeared on the market, and people's interest in him has never wavered. Of late, a letter was found in which Einstein fully dismisses religion as childish, and in particular, refers to the religion of his upbringing (Judaism) as nothing out of the ordinary when compared to other such childish religions. This naturally gives fuel and fodder to the atheist supporters of Einstein, and credibility to their arguments that he often invoked God as a metaphor, not an absolute.

Having described this phenomenon of treating Einstein as a valuable resource towards confirmation or denial of various claims, we must try to keep some perspective on these notions. Einstein was neither omnipotent, nor central towards universal insight. He was a human being gifted with abilities in physics, mathematics, simplification of complex laws, and of course, approachability. As all humans however, he was flawed in many ways; distant from his family, unfaithful to his wife, stubborn in his later years towards quantum theory, etc. What all this adds up to is that people deify him and subsequently project their beliefs on to him. Since they respect his position and achievements, they feel that his views are vastly superior to that of scientists in today's world. However, it must be understood that Einstein was neither a philosopher, or had the theoretical knowledge and wealth of the last 60 years to draw upon. His notions, though far advanced for his time, are now expanded upon and further understood. What was once his theories of general and special relativity have become well understood by many physicists, and they have further labored (just as Einstein did in his last 30 years) towards unifying these concepts of gravity with the other three fundamental forces (known as a Grand Unification Theory, or GUT). Although we're no closer at approaching unification, we have a much better understanding of relativity and yet, must realize that Einstein doesn't speak for all scientists or philosophies. People cannot use his views on religion as a justification for belief or disbelief. He was an important human being, but is now dead and gone. His beliefs, though important and relevant to him have been long buried along with his body. It doesn't matter what his religious views were, just as it shouldn't make a difference as to what Newton, Galileo, Darwin, and others believed. We should form our opinions based on this mountain of scientific evidence collected through the centuries regardless of the personal beliefs of those involved. Their scientific achievements are a totally different and far more important matter, but whether they believed that shooting ducks in a barrel filled with tomato sauce or running puppies over while riding intoxicated on morphine on a unicycle, was a fun method to pass the time, shouldn't matter.

Fear of Knowledge and "Elitism"

As long as human beings have been around, and probably even earlier (among hominids like Neanderthals and perhaps even Homo Erectus), it is well known that individuals possessing a great deal of knowledge are very important for the preservation and continuation of society. These individuals, which we now call experts have spent their lives studying phenomenon that has lead to novel methods of illumination and revelation. As human society has expanded, so has the role and importance of experts. During the initial stages of human civilization, certain individuals we now call Shaman, or witchdoctors were trusted to possess knowledge that was seen as critical towards the survival of a tribe or even society. They were often entrusted to have knowledge of the natural phenomenon that occurred around their limited world-view. They were often found working with the beliefs that made logical intuitive sense. Their understanding of botany, atmospheric phenomenon, and geological changes was extremely imaginative and elementary compared to what we now know, but in their time and place, they had the wisdom and know-how that individuals trusted for their survival. Perhaps their understanding was limited compared to our own, but they far exceeded their peers, and thus, were often consulted as "experts". As humans settled and civilization matured, new niches were created within society for new kinds of experts. Suddenly, there were priests, astrologers, blacksmiths, geographers, agronomists, animal husbandry practitioners, etc. These individuals occupied important positions in society and thus, were frequently consulted for advice and even philosophical insight. With the advent of science and the scientific method, there are countless niches that are being filled with individuals possessing specific knowledge. Even in the recent past, such as during the Enlightenment, many retained generalized knowledge across vastly different disciplines, but as our base of understanding expands, newer and more specific frontiers are discovered and subsequently occupied by very wise and learned individuals. As an analogy, one can think of an elephant and octopus. An elephant has a single trunk it uses in various different ways, whereas an octopus has 8 arms, with each able to undertake a specific task. Modern day society is very much like an hyper-octopus, with millions of arms each obtaining some specific insight and adding to a thorough understanding.

The recent progress that science and technology have provided to society cannot be underestimated. Through the countless work of millions of driven and wise individuals, a large base of knowledge has been established that continues to grow and add through refinements in the scientific method and developments based on that principle. Concurrently, as fields of expertise have expanded, certain other roles are slowly becoming relegated to the past. Blacksmiths, whose role cannot ever be understated in past society have largely disappeared, with only a few individuals practicing it for the sake of art or very specific niches. Similarly, one would expect the role of religious experts to disappear. As science expands and contradicts the mythical and imaginative stories that many religions are based on, the individuals practicing this nonsense should theoretically be relegated to the role of mythologists. Yet, we see a growing sense of dread for billions of people in the possible loss of these "experts". I have already tackled the reasons many are unable to uncoil this reality numbing python wrapped around their minds in previous posts, but it must be restated that through ignorance, need for comfort, seeking of authority, group thinking, and indoctrination the sense of wonder and reality about the universe is snuffed away. These people grasp at any possible link that although false, may give them a sense of ignorant and blissful inner peace. They purposely close their minds or of those who are willing to tread the fence, stop just before fully crossing into reality and rationalism by purporting to feel empty without their indoctrinated belief system. Ultimately, this fear of the unknown is reinforced and continuously indoctrinated throughout the believers' lives. The fear of having only one chance in life, only one shot on this planet as a biological organism, fragile, and readily influenced through any whim of the cosmos stops many in their tracts, and in fact, results in their hatred towards those who are unwilling to stop at an artificial line.

The ignorant individuals who have developed a sense of fear and mistrust of knowledge eventually deem those who possess those specific traits as a danger to society and view their behavior negatively. The label "elitist" is tossed around these days, by congressmen, media pundits, and even a would-be presidential candidate. The proverbial camelid back breaking straw was when Hillary Clinton referred to Barack Obama's higher education and impassioned, educated speeches as elitist. Suddenly, half the country decided that elitists were evil, snobbish, and didn't care about the working class. Yet, when one really looks at politicians, most of them are traditionally elitist. They have power, money, influence, and most important, view themselves as privileged when compared to the rest of Americans. These people in such lofty positions are all elitist. The scientists, educators, inventors, researchers, and the like are modern day experts, not the elite. These are people who are working hard to further society, and help humanity, while politicians bicker and cause hatred and division among the populace to further their own egotistical agendas. They set the stage for their children to continue in their footsteps, as in the case of the Bush family. These are the elite that the populace should fear, not the learned, and educated individuals. Knowledge is nothing to fear when taken ethically and responsibly but unfortunately, few will ever come to understand this concept. Society will continue to treat children who possess the drive and will to learn as nerds, geeks, dorks, bookworms, etc. It's no surprise that the average American would rather have a President in office that they could share a drink with, play monopoly with, shoot deer, treat them like children, and continually police and suppress their free thought with the public's blind acceptance and enthusiasm. It should further be understood that not all individuals are born with the personality traits conductive towards acquiring all forms of knowledge, but most every individual has certain latent talents and behavioral characteristics that can allow them to occupy certain important niches in society. The shame of having so many people turn their back against knowledge is that many of them can be instrumental in embracing the future, but because of ignorance, politics, and intimidation or fear, they will take the easy road and become resistant towards personal growth and development. When they do seem to embrace personal growth, it's often directed towards useless endeavors like religion or spirituality. It's no secret that religion's greatest fear is knowledge, thus the story of the forbidden fruit and clichés like "ignorance is bliss". Yet, the knowledge is there to be ascertained and the possibilities are both gratifying and infinite. If stating these facts make me seem elitist, then be it so, but there's nothing negative about it.

Armenian Genocide Victims?

As April 24th approaches each and every year, Armenians all over the world commemorate the single greatest tragedy that ever befell the Armenian people in collective memory. In brief, the Ottoman Turkish Empire that had rules large regions of West Asia and the Balkans had dissolved to a point where chaos ruled, and a scapegoat was needed to divert from inherent problems present due to dysfunctional governing, and poor economic policy. Armenians, having been inhabitants of the region for thousands of years, predating the Turks by at least 2,000 years, were singled out and labeled as traitors to the Turkish cause, and were massacred by well over a million individuals. Nearly all the survivors were subsequently displaced, and fled to establish the global Armenian Diaspora that remains to this day. Similarly, the Greek and Assyrian inhabitants of the region (also predating the Turks by thousands of years), where also summarily massacred and displaced. As these populations were considered disloyal, due to their Christian backgrounds, and ethnic independence, they were wiped off the modern face of what's now Turkey. From the late 19th Century, to the peak during World War I, and the subsequent years that lasted well into World War II, millions of individuals were killed, with their history and their ties to the region severed. The thousands of years of architecture, books, language, music, and other such unique aspects to culture were lost forever. It is therefore of no surprise that Armenians identify themselves as victims, and to this very day, believe that the world owes them an apology. Through the eyes of such enlightened entities as Western Europe, the United States, and Russia, the Genocide perpetrated against the Armenians lasted for well over 20 years. Feeling as though this inaction was a crime in itself, Armenians have been pushing for at least half a century to have the world recognize the Armenian Genocide as they recognize the Nazi Holocaust. They associate themselves with other victims, such as the Jews of Europe, and blame many cultural problems on this collective trauma. The fact is that although it is the moral duty of any rational and enlightened country to recognize a Genocide, Armenians are owed nothing. We must realize that our cultural intensity should be directed at greater problems than the recognition of the Armenian Genocide. The true victims of the Genocide are no longer among us, but the survivors are not just victims, but individuals with the power of an entire culture to draw from. As hard as the Genocide was on the Armenian psyche, our culture rebounded from these atrocities with a greater drive and intensity. We were no longer inhabitants of a backward quasi-imperialistic entity, but inhabitants that have spread our culture across the world.

As Armenians around the world debate within the legislative branches of their governments for Genocide Recognition, their resources could be better aimed at actually assisting an entity that has managed to emerge from the ashes of such trauma. The Republic of Armenia, as small as it is in area, landlocked and surrounded with barren terrain, is still a soil that is sovereign and independent. After nearly three thousand years of constant battles, an internationally recognized constitutional state has emerged. The obstacles have been numerous, and every advance seems to highlight areas that seem to have recessed or stagnated. Recently, Armenia has been through the most divisive issue that has surfaced in this infant Republic. As the Presidential Elections of 2008 approached, the opposition, lead by the formerly disgraced President of Armenia (Levon Ter Petrossian), staged a massive and violent protest, aimed at the apparently corrupt rule of the outgoing President Robert Kocharian. This protest released a lot of resentment building up within Armenia, regarding those that aim for Western influence, and others who are reliant on Russian influence. As has been the case in Armenian history, the region has become a volatile place of world powers, aiming to deftly, as well as overtly, influence Armenia's future. Armenia has once again become a buffer state, that can be manipulated and manhandled. As the international Armenian community uses their well intentioned influences towards Genocide Recognition, Armenia teeters on the brink of chaos. The possibility of losing the sovereign nation that has spent well over 700 years to regain sovereignty seems to bypass the minds of many Genocide Activists. If Armenians cannot unite and organize to save the Republic, then what good is Genocide Recognition? As the world watches, Armenians are killing each other over foreign influence of the region while a great opportunity for advancement and modernization passes by as quietly as the wing flaps of an owl.

Having just highlighted the problems that have come from tunnel vision focusing squarely on Genocide Recognition, the possibilities of reinventing ourselves is infinite. Armenians need look no further then modern states to see how a small nation, with seemingly few resources can become a major player and partner to the modern global economy. As an example, Singapore, even in the 1950's, was largely an agricultural and rural country. Yet, within a few decades, it had become powerful enough to lead the world in certain industrial and financial sectors. As of late, many biotechnology companies have moved there to embrace the growing sector that's become the focal point of asian economics and future development. Switzerland is another example of what a country, in this case, one with many different linguistic and ethnic groups, can accomplish if they unite for a common purpose. Armenians, having a shared culture, need not have the ethnic concerns that governed Switzerland, yet, as far as banking and finance are concerned, no other country in the world can compete with Switzerland. Although banking has become a global business, and very difficult to establish as an entity similar to Switzerland, information technology, biotechnology, and modern research and development can be key in Armenia's future. If Armenia can establish a transit hub for technology linking Europe, Asia, and the Middle East, the possibilities are endless. Although there are many drawbacks towards being landlocked in a contentious area of the world, one of the benefits is that it becomes a transit point for economics. Even as far back as the Silk Road, Armenia had been the midpoint of trade between China and Europe. This kind of hub mentality could definitely translate to the modern global economy. As Armenians around the world reinvent themselves, and shake off the victim label that they so proudly wear, much more can be accomplish. We can help to steer Armenia into having the internal strength and equality to many powers of the region, and for once, control our own destiny as a people. No more shall we be prey towards the tide of political influence, begging for scraps at the table, when we could proudly become equal trade partners to many areas of the world. The Armenian Diaspora, along with the Republic of Armenia can finally focus on something beyond Genocide Recognition and declaring to the world that Armenia was the first to declare Christianity as a State Religion. These days, who really cares about either of those two things besides Armenians? What matters most is where we will be as a people, and a culture a century from now. Will we remain pawns in the global game of power and influence, or will we finally break free of these bonds and declare ourselves active participants of the Modern world economy? This is the question that every Armenian, both foreign and domestic, must ask themselves.

Futile Attempts for a Purpose in Life

It is often the case that as people try to find purpose in life, they often redefine the universe to suit their feelings. Often, they feel they know the truth, and that by just closing their eyes, and touching the spirit of the universe, the truth is revealed to them. These people are not necessarily religious, not in the organized sense. In fact, many moderate religious people believe that there is some truth in all religions, and often attempt to explain that they all lead to a similar path of supposed enlightenment. It's as though all the roads lead to a place that they seek, and from which some type of esoteric truth can be discerned. The actual truth is that human curiosity can lead to numerous imaginary, but false roads, when in fact, a decent rudimentary knowledge of science can actually illuminate the processes that govern our universe. Outside of any solipsism, where one believes that their own mind is the only reality that exists, and all others are subject to one's unique thought processes, the physical properties of our universe are there to be uncovered and understood through the empirical and rigorous process of the scientific method. Besides a world-view entrenched in solipsism, we can make a few general assumptions governing properties of our universe that we can use to explain the emerging physics, chemistry, and biology found within. Of primary importance is to realize that there are certain physical laws common throughout the length and breath of the universe, and that these laws have resulted in complex interactions that have lead from random fluctuations in quantum physics, to arrangements of atoms into chemical structures. Furthermore, we know that in at least one closed environment (the Earth), the natural laws were favorable for chemical reactions that lead to complex information carrying molecules which subsequently arranged themselves into biological structures, eventually leading to the human species. With mountains of data in various different scientific disciplines, there is very little contrary evidence to this. Naturally, gaps in the processes that lead to life on earth do exist, but as we progress, both technically and scientifically, we come to understand a great deal more. As old questions are answered, countless new ones are generated, and the accumulative power of the scientific method is strengthened. Furthermore, with the discovery of extra-terrestrial life, using comparative methods, we may indeed get nearer to understand how life got a foothold, and perhaps to define life itself. Still, even with all of this scientific progress, there are spiritual types who believe that we are all bound by some undefined energies link us all together in some kind of soul or spirit (depending on who is asked, some believe that every living being has a soul, others that every object within the universe, and still others that only sentient, self-aware life). These people are just hoping for something, out of fear, comfort, and ignorance. They are far from stupid people, in fact, many are very intelligent. Yet, they compartmentalize their minds and due to a highly active emotional response, keep areas of their brain from letting go of constructed garbage, and in doing so, accepting credulous nonsense. These days, the credulous things have evolved towards new-aged religions. It's an offshoot of principles from their indoctrinated traditional religious views, mixed and melded with tolerant principles of other religions. They have drifted from defining a sense of God in a personified form, into defining it as the "binding spirit" of the universe. In essence then, defining God as the prime mover, or the prime observer, or the binding energy of everything, for some just living things, while for others, all that is matter and energy combined. It all sounds wonderfully poetic and meaningful, but ultimately childish. It's hard to break this attachment to a higher authority, and realize that we're on our own as human beings. All we have for comfort and support are other human beings. This understanding will not destroy civilization but save it from religious hysteria, illogic, and inherent hypocrisy. Progress is possible, even with the interjection of spirituality in daily life, but ultimately, the process is slowed by archaic notions and traditionalists who attempt to define reality by altering the governing processes of the universe.

Republicans are the Borg

While observing the Republican party's PR machine, it's striking that they have developed a system by which they assimilate thoughts and ideas, forming them into a collective, and disseminating their treacherous message to any victim that may fall prey to their arguments. The issues that Republicans stand for may appear morally just on the surface (at least to those with weak minds), but their archaic and aged rhetoric is a result of inherent fears. They fear change that may suddenly take the reasoning abilities of average people to higher levels of cultural and moral development. Without the constraints of religion, the moral and ethical guidelines that we, modern human beings should follow, would come from our biological, evolutionary adapted past. We evolved certain moral sensibilities to function within a small social network. We are no longer small tight-knit clans aiming to expand our territory and adapting the environment to suit our personal needs. We have evolved culturally to a point where millions of people inhabit the same amount of land that perhaps a few clans 10,000 years ago were living. With these added social pressures, constraints, and stresses, we have come to realize that our ethical codes must adapt towards humanism, protection of civil liberties, and the inherent freedom that every single human being should be born with. It's unfortunate that so many people are born into poverty, disease, warfare, and other such malicious environments. These disadvantages may be overcome in isolated instances, but for the most part, many are trapped within their socio-economic bubbles. Of tantamount importance, in order to break free of these chains, is the concept of a thorough early education, and the method of learning involving critical thinking and rationality. The lack of these two factors is a major contributing force towards polarization and the unrestrained tyrannical control of a population. The Republican party's platforms include social restraints, religions indoctrination, polarized populations, and domination through fear, intimidation, and sheer lust for power. The Democratic party certainly has their own demons to fear, but their weakened will, and tolerant behavior towards tyranny is by far the most shameful and disgusting characteristic. It reminds me of Patrick Stewards famous line in Star Trek "First Contact" when speaking of the Borg threat "We've made too many compromises already. Too many retreats. They invade our space and we fall back. They assimilate entire worlds and we fall back. Not again. The line must be drawn here! This far, no further!" The parallels between this particular fictional narrative and reality are not that different. We progressives (not singling democrats but all liberal thinkers) are constantly standing down when faced with the Republican rhetoric. They intimidate the populace through fear, and draw anyone who stand in their way as cowards and unpatriotic drolls. They assimilate entire worlds of ideas, and reformulate them to fit within the unsound bounds of their ideologies. The line truly must be drawn within this generation, and we should no longer have to play by their rules. Every time they attack our progressive ideas, we retreat into behavioral modes of niceness. We assume that only through our understanding, patience, and kindess, will their ideas falter. The truth is that we cannot remain in the defensive. We must attack these stupid ideas head-on, without flinching or feelings of remorse. We must take back our sovereignty by abiding to the constitutional framework that changed not only America but the world. We must use our Diplomatic skills cunningly, engage the scientific curiosity of the population, and constantly fight to highlight the benefits of a progressive, rational and reasonable world. The countless issues involving the environment, medicine, disease prevention, poverty, international debt, resource exploitation, political interference through saber rattling and clandestine games, must be brought to the forefront and placed on the collective palate of the American people. We should re-establish a Democracy of the people, not of the powerful lobbyists and corporations. The future of the United States and the World depends on this generation taking a stand against this Borg-like entity of conservatives that manipulate the system to attain new levels of power and influence.

Listen here all you politicians, you lying, cheating, war-mongering, theocratic, tyrannical bastards of all walks of life (yes, this includes you Democrats as well), the time for compromises is at an end. Your time as leaders is going to be over real soon, and you will find a generation of non-compliant Americans fighting your every move. The Borg Menace must be, and will be stopped. You cannot restrain progress, no matter how you try. Your resistance will be futile.


A Similar Article: Fighting Words: How to Humiliate -- and Convert -- a Right-Winger

Lessons on the 5th year of the Iraq War

It has now been 5 years to the day that the Bush regime allowed the travesty that has been the Iraq War to commence. They had thousands of advisers, and whether they really believed them, or decided to manipulate the American people even though silently knowing that the current situation was inevitable, doesn't change the fact that we are now entrenched in a quagmire like Vietnam, with no end in sight. Should American troops withdraw today, then Iraq will probably revert to a long period of drawn-out extensive internal conflicts, a deepening of the civil war currently raging, and drawing neighboring countries into the ensuing pit of despair. Should the troops remain, then they would be stretched too thin, and our standing in the world will continue to freefall. There are no easy answers and no easy solutions, but clearly, one of them has to be to reduce our presence in Iraq, regardless of the ramifications. We cannot continue on a path towards idiocy when all efforts have proved futile. At the moment, some optimists and delusional individuals assume that the reduction in recent violence will continue unabated. The truth is that both Shi'a and Sunni are arming themselves for a long drawn out bitter conflict over the ruins of what will be Iraq. This short-sighted, treacherous administration has allowed, through perjury, rampant idiocy, and stupid ideological beliefs, a conflict that will only escalate for the coming decades. When people look upon this generation, they will wonder how so many followed in such silent and obedient steps behind the stupidest and most ill-conceived international policies. We handed the world a hate card for being American, and allowed ourselves to enter a period of dwindling resources, severe recession, and heavy pessimism. Digging out of this hole is a task that may take decades to accomplish, and even then, our standing in the world will never be what it once was.

A lesson to be learned from this tragedy, beyond all the obvious ones such as checking facts, relying on proper information, upholding constitutional standards, and abiding by a moral code that puts human beings ahead of economic agendas, is that even individuals with powers that far exceed our own can often be wrong. They are no better at judging our future then the educated person with a rational and open mind. We provide so much faith in our so called leaders, to guide us, drive our agendas, and hope that through it all, our desires can be accomplished, and we will all be better off in the end. The truth of the matter is that these individuals are selfish and greedy human beings, who look out for their own skin and their own bank accounts. They are above the law in so many ways, that it's unbelievable that they have the freedoms they do. They wantonly commit perjury, desecration of our civil liberties, and constant hypocritical modes of behavior that would shame even the most extremist terrorists. Their constant control of the masses, over polarizing issues like abortion, gun control, sexual orientation, religious values only blind the population from seeing the lying pathetic pigs that they are. There is no aura or mysticism associated with these bastards who hold high elected offices. Who cares about their degrees in politics, law, economics, etc, when they act selfishly? We are so quick to criticize Communist or Fascist dictators, when our elected officials don't exactly behave differently. Our democracy is a facade hidden under greedy corporate capitalists. This doesn't mean one must advocate communism or socialism, but our mode of capitalism only helps the elite, and encumbers the masses. We are far from a truly egalitarian society, and although there are many complex reasons for the divisions, greed and power are never far from the equation.

Ultimately then, just as blind faith in religion, a higher power, or some supernatural entity is wrong, similarly, blind faith in elected officials, ideology and nationalism are also wrong. There are various levels of faith, but as long as one suspends their skepticism and their rational mind, and allows some idea that has no basis outside of the human mind to exist, then we're all slaves to a system. It does help to have some level of background education, but many are capable of breaking the chains of mental manipulation when taught to think skeptically and rationally. Basing facts on empirical evidence, and observation, is but one change that must be sought. Increasing an interest in the real world, outside of human ideology is another aspect that must be strengthened. For all of our ills, and problems, ultimately, they are meaningless to the cosmos. Does the universe really care if one decides abortion is moral? Some may say yes, but those individuals are allowing their faith in an imaginary entity to dictate what moral and humanitarian beliefs should be upheld. Our morality is based on our evolutionary past, and we should strive to approach an egalitarian society, where disparity between people is more equalized. Not to argue for complete equality, because as individuals, every human being is different, but as more people begin to think critically, and question ideology, much can be accomplished in the world.

Although the Iraq war, among many other facts active in the American experience, has set us decades back from rigorous democracy and global diplomacy, all is not lost. As long as a segment of the populations operates skeptically, and with an open and rational mind, then there is hope for the future. The divisive issues of the time are just props used by the elite to control the general populace into herd behavior. We, the people, are cattle, to be driven across the landscape, milked of everything we have, devoid of freedom and the open air, constantly providing resources to those few we ourselves select. It's unimaginable that an enlightened human being can provide someone else with so much power. These idiots speak of freedom, liberty, and democracy; they talk highly of being moral, law abiding, religious individuals, when they are often, worse then the general populace. Their supposed religious values are a farce. They claim that they abide by a higher power, and those who are not religious are egotistical, but the hypocrisy of those supposedly abiding by a higher, moral power is stunning. They are just using these religious values to control the populace, pretending to be interested in what some idiot preacher, priest, rabbi, imam, monk, guru, or sociopath has to say. The only true democratic development would be to rip the power away from the hands of these tyrannical bastards and back to the properly educated people. The way to do that would be to reorganize the electorate, allow more then 2 parties to dominate the political landscape, have a truly independent, open and honest media, and allow for greater accountability for elected officials. Reorganize the corporate democracy we have now wouldn't be such a bad idea either, and last of all, no campaigning years before an election. Campaigns should be as short as possible, with 10 debates, with questions that are asked by randomly selected individuals. No prepared statements or speeches, but a true test of the capability of these candidates. Finally, and most importantly, spend as much money as possible on a centralized educational system where every student across the country between kindergarten and high school has the same curriculum. A little freedom should be allowed by the high school level. All the trillions that are projected to be spent in Iraq could better have been spent on education, science, research and development, social services, etc. The greatest tragedy of all is that people are willing to be lied towards entering a costly and unending war out of fear, but spending the same amount of money on infrastructure and the advancement of society is frowned upon and argued endlessly.