The need for Vigilance in Science

In science, contrary to popular thinking, many hypotheses are incorrect. In fact, considering all the published papers, most of the ideas presented will eventually turn out to be substantially false. The importance of these ideas, even those that will become false, comes from the rigorous testing methods that can prove the veracity or errors present in the initial hypothesis. As a tool, the scientific method can become useful in assessing the likelihood that a given theory can be upheld with incoming data. Science therefore, must be supported through experimental means, beyond theoretical assumptions. The tools at our disposal, are far numerous to count. As an example, computer simulation can be a powerful determinant when it comes to proving certain hypothetical claims. Further, numerous analytical techniques can correlate data into a comprehensive understanding. When considering evolutionary theory, Natural Selection remains supported through hundreds of different methods present at a scientist's disposal. Through molecular genetics, radio-isotopic analysis, taxonomy, paleontology, comparative anatomy, and numerous other converging fields, the Theory of Evolution through Natural Selection is not only supported, but strengthened and refined. With the development of newer tools and even more specialized techniques, specific details can emerge and add to the mountain of data already present.

Having been exposed to the thrills and rigor of evolutionary theory, it's striking that as comfortable as one becomes with a given subject, the likelihood for a breach in upholding the standards practiced at first, increase rather substantially. Since the field of evolution is so vast, theories abound in a seemingly chaotic fashion. Some remain conserved from the moment of inception, and others are as likely to change as autumn leaves in temperate locales. It seems as though some theories are presented just to strengthen the opposing argument while others are just like small stepping stones, aiding to an all encompassing bigger picture. With so much mercurial transition, the danger of complacency increases in a staggering manner. Certain theories seem logical, and therefore, so intuitive that they are grasped as though they were proven with little doubt. These are "fashionable" ideas that can vary from replicable and probable, to absolutely impossible. An example is the radiation of mammals during the Cretatious/Tertiary era (approximately 80 million years to about 40 million years ago). It was long assumed that before the extinction of dinosaurs as well as 75% of other organisms on Earth, mammals were simple, shrew sized animals living nocturnally and barely scraping through an existence. Further, it was only after the K/T (65 Million years ago, otherwise known as the end of the Dinosaur Age) extinction event that mammals had the freedom to radiate and fill various ecological niches. As intuitive as this theory may seem, it has recently been proven largely false. As it turns out, through molecular analysis (of various mammalian DNA), it turns out that most modern mammals had 2 major radiation events where they evolved into numerous species. The first was well within the Dinosaur age, at about 80 million years ago, while the second event was well after the extinction event, dating to approximately 55 million years ago. Those mammals that did radiate directly after the K/T extinction were eventual evolutionary dead ends. They have left no known modern ancestors. The Mammals that exist on Earth today are a result of the aforementioned radiation events, and not the latter that lead to the post-extinction radiation. With the molecular data pointing to these two dates, the challenge now falls upon the paleontologists to match the fossil record with that of the molecular evidence. What this new finding means is that although early mammals were indeed the size of shrews, they were genetically very diverse. They went through two periods of explosive diversity, followed by slower evolutionary changes. Although this new data increases our understanding as per the dates of the events, theories as to why these occurred when they did are now being published. What lead to these two periods of radiation? Was it subtle changes in the Earth's climate? The configuration of the continents? The diversity of flowering plants, or insects, or items that were consumed by mammals?

Having spoken of the dinosaur age, certain assumptions of fossilizations must also be disassembled. It was long thought that fossils could not preserve any genetic material for tracing. Until recently, most paleontologists expected fossils older then 50,000 years to have very little chance of preserving any observable material. They assumed that mineralization of the tissues would be complete, and no actual tissue could be left preserved. Even insects fossilized in amber were thought to mineralize from the chemicals present, and have no usable tissue remaining. The assumption was proven wrong when a paleontologist by the name of Mary Higby Schweitzer of North Carolina State University and colleagues, recovered what seemed to be actual tissue from a Tyrannosaurus Rex sample. As it turned out, this fossil was preserved in sandstone, and even delicate details were present. With further processing and new molecular imagine techniques, some actual collagen (connective tissue) was recovered for DNA analysis. As it now turns out (with further independent verification required), T-rex was closely related to modern day Chickens. Birds therefore, are a direct descendent of a meat eating, bipedal, therapod dinosaur.

Having earlier delved through the confusion that abounds in mammalian diversity, other aspects of evolutionary theory are just as difficult to understand. The former example (of mammalian radiation) provided the fallacy of "compound intuition". The next example will shed light on the fallacy of "convergent observation". Certain parallel behaviors that we observe in nature can seem to have a common root. A common fallacy is to assume that perhaps those behaviors share a genetic basis. In fact, what we observe can in fact be due to convergent evolution that uses an optimal survival strategy. It will become apparent that an organism doesn't necessarily need a specific "gene" for useful strategies to perpetuate its survival. For example, just as a tropical fish will flee into a small crevasse in coral to escape a predator, an arctic lemming will dive into a small hole to do the same. Although these two strategies seem similar superficially, the organisms do not share a "flee into a small hole" gene. Their strategies are the optimal best to ensure survival therefore they remain within those organisms. The genetic tools they use to escape are completely different, even though the end result ensures survival. Similarly, genes that control social organization among species can vary greatly. The same optimal survival strategy that dogs use in pack situations, ants use in colonies, and naked mole rats use within their own hierarchy is similar to those of our own species. Organizing into cohesive social units furthers our chances of survival, although the genes that govern this behavior are completely different. Moreover, similar convergence in evolution can be found in the development of the eye. As it turns out, the ancestors of various modern species evolved eyes completely independent of each other. The eyes of the box jelly fish, or the mantis shrimp, are completely different then that of human eyes. Yet, in an organism's development, some genetic sequences that govern the placement of the eyes are very similar (hox genes for example). This similarly however, does not mean that there is a genetic link between the development of the eye in these organisms. What actually happens is that the environment dictates the advantage of a sensory organ for sight, and as certain evolutionary trends evolve, gene sequences are used that are similar between these organisms for the same function. To simplify, if jelly fish and humans both use the "Z" gene for eyesight, it doesn't necessarily mean that they both had a common ancestor that used the "Z" gene for sight. At some early phase of development, the ancestors of jelly fish and humans acquired a certain gene sequence ("Z") that independently resulted in governing the development of the eye in these two organisms. If looked at superficially, it would seem to some that this ancestral organism (Concestor, using a word invented by Richard Dawkins-- one of the most well known evolutionary biologists) had used the "Z" gene for eyesight and then the branch the lead to the jelly fish/human split acquired this characteristic. In reality, the Concestor passed on the gene first, and then some time later, the progenitors that resulted in jelly fish acquired the usage of the gene for eyesight, just as those early organisms that resulted in humans did independently as well. Naturally, this is an oversimplification, because the common ancestor between what later became humans and jelly fish existed over 500 million years ago.

Finally, after Gregor Mendel's legendary experiments with peas and genetics, followed by the discovery of the actual carrier molecule for those genes (DNA), many geneticists felt that soon, genetic inheritance would be completely uncovered. It was assumed that within a few decades after the initial discovery of DNA, all would be known about genetic inheritance. As it turns out, those assumptions could not have been more wrong. As we've come to realize, genetic inheritance isn't as simple as once was thought. The simple assumptions that the interplay between dominant and recessive genes, along with the sexually selected genes determined inheritance. It was also thought that each gene coded for a single protein, but as our understanding of molecular biology and chemistry improves, we now know that things are far more complex than assumed. The same genes can code for various different proteins if they are placed different locations with different activator sequences. Other genes code for nothing but unused DNA. Furthermore, the concept of imprinting greatly compounds our understanding of Mendelian Inheritance. With mammalian imprinting, the male or female parental genes can disable the other partner's and as a result, the offspring will only retain one copy of that gene. In other words, the gene becomes useless because it's function is blocked by one of the parents. Although some traits can easily be explained through Dominant and Recessive genes, other traits are a result of the complex interplay between numerous genes and imprinted genes within an individual. In fact, even environmental changes can determine the expression of certain genes. Not only genes in an existing individual, but the changes in certain sequences can effect individuals many generations down the line. For example, under the newfound field of epigenetics, scientists are realizing that obesity can alter genes in such a way that many generations of descendents can be effected by Diabetes, among other medical ailments. In essence, the processes are so complex, that it could take hundreds of years to decode the workings well.

In essence then, science will always shift in new directions, with additional information arriving. Observation is thus, the most important trait in science, and as we invent new tools to further our observation, and then theorize and explain those observations, our understanding of the universe will continue to grow. As certain theories are invalidated, our understanding strengthens because now we can rule them out. Further, even more questions will arise, as some of those are answered and others discarded. This is ultimately the beauty of science. Errors will always be useful because they help focus our understanding and strengthen or weaken existing theories. Science is therefore alive and will evolve with our progress. As an example, before the car existed, the wheel must have been invented, followed by the cart, carriage, etc. Similarly, incremental steps are so important, that we cannot take them for granted. After all, a ladder can't be climbed by great leaps, but step-by-step (of course, occasionally, you can take two or three steps up the rungs, but you also risk falling, just as is done in science). Thus, most apparent breakthroughs are not enormous leaps but lead to rapid descent followed by yet another surge towards the top. Therefore, with vigilance comes momentum and progress.

The Rifle Shot that Blew my Mind

Having just seen the Oscar winning movie Babel, a few realizations of human nature, and our consequences on the fabric of the world come to mind. Without spoiling too much of the movie, the whole movie can be summarized as consequences from actions that seem trivial and insignificant at first which can subsequently snowball into complex and intertwined larger problems. A "causality cascade" as I will call these types of events can occur without anyone's knowledge, and with no determined directionality. In the movie, an avid hunter from Japan leaves behind a rifle in gratification for the good job his Moroccan guide did providing him with optimal hunting locations. This rifle, eventually getting in the hands of mischievous children, leads to a shot on a tour bus, that snowballs into a causality cascade, eventually resulting in a complex interwoven story of how separate lives can combine through a rather insignificant event. Had the hunter never made it to Morocco, or had the rifle never exchanged hands, or any number of other scenarios, the actions that resulted in tragedy and loss would never have occurred. All of these events, therefore, transpired without any predetermination in the part of the people involved at the fate of their lives. Events such as these are nothing new to philosophers and even scientists have mathematical equations describing these cascade events known as Chaos Theory.

A causality cascade could be anything that snowballs into something larger. In effect, it's like an uncontrolled chain reaction with no predetermined intention. When an atomic bomb undergoes fission, the neutrons in the atoms start a cascade chain reaction effecting others exponentially until the immense powers of those nuclear reactions are released. In this instance, there is a clear predetermination as to what the subsequent result will be. The neutrons do not undergo uncontrolled chain reactions like the causality cascades, because the end result is a mushroom cloud, and everything must result in precise timing. Causality cascades on the other hand, as already mentioned are not predetermined, and are extremely uncontrollable. Events can effect other events in such ways that could never be imagined, because there are an infinite amount of possible outcomes from each event. Chaos theory attempts to describe these events, whether they involve atoms, computer generated fractals, or even human actions, into a mathematical model that attempts to predict various probabilities on possible outcomes. At the point of infinite variation, it's impossible to predict exactly how an event that is so complex will turn out, yet there are events that can be more likely to occur then others. It's similar to quantum effects* on atoms. It's impossible to predict the exact location of an electron orbiting an atom because measuring and observing the location of the electron forces it to change, and alter its initial state. Therefore, the best one can hope for is to determine a probability of where the electron may be. There is a chance that the electron itself can be found at the other end of the universe, and with trillions of electrons, it's very likely that one may end up there through some complex quantum effects. Yet, through probabilities, the electrons are more likely to be found in certain regional distributions, and the greatest amount will be found in certain areas orbiting atoms. Taking this in mind, it's possible through causality cascades to have a butterfly flapping its wing in Mexico, effecting the weather to the point of a hurricane developing in the Indian Ocean. The displaced air molecules from the butterflies wings can convert into a type of chain reaction and eventually lead to enough "momentum" building in the changes of air flow to feed a system over the Indian Ocean, resulting in a Hurricane. The probability of this specific event may be extremely low, but with all the air molecules, and all the small effects of butterflies, birds, dragonflies, and other such causational events, the probability that these can cascade into a large scale atmospheric event is almost certain. There is no way to predict which specific butterfly can cause it, but it's possible to predict the probability that these small scale events have in effecting larger ones (100% since all larger events start with smaller ones that cascade).

Our actions on a daily basis will therefore, inevitably lead to an infinite number of causality cascades, some which we consider good, and others which we consider bad. For example, perhaps giving the right of way to a driver waiting on a busy free-way onramp, will result in that driver's awareness of others, and through due course and time, this will cascade into good will spread upon numerous individuals, perhaps cascading into someone's life being saved. In the same token, it's also possible that cutting somebody off, will result in the driver's behavior to become erratic, and through numerous other chain reactions, one of the angry drivers along the way will do something rash enough to cause an accident and involuntarily take a life. Finally, a third possibility is that what one perceives as a positive event can become negative to others. For example, taking the same driving scenario mentioned, perhaps suddenly breaking to avoid large debris on the freeway may be beneficial to the individual driver, and the avoidance a positive event, yet, the reaction may cause more disastrous results to drivers following behind. It may be a positive event to one life, but its negative impact may be felt by dozens of others following behind. In another example, if a small child was choking on food particles, and one were to assist in saving the child's life, it would definitely seem like a positive event. However, what if this child in turn became a Tyrannical leader who's path of destruction lead to the death of millions, wars of aggression and perpetual hostility? Then what seemed like a good deed, could in fact have been a great disservice. If one knew ahead to time, that said child would turn out to be Hitler, the morality of the situation would definitely be difficult to assess. These scenarios show the complexity of causality cascades, and how their effects cannot be trivialized or minimized. There is no way to avoid effecting events along the chain when one has no predetermined notion as to what will follow. Yet, there are scenarios high in probability that are more likely to occur when one analyzes the events thoroughly and attempts to discern some form of causality.

Having defined and explained causality cascades, one need look no further then those individuals in prominent positions of government to realize just how much power they have over events that effect every individual's life. The causality cascades that you or I are able to initiate in our lives are infinitesimally small, compared to those that Bush, as well as other "leaders" are capable of. Bush's decision to launch an aggressive war on Iraq leads to the destruction of an infinite amount of lives, over such flimsy reasons as weapons of mass destructions. When the excuse for invasion failed to materialize, other excuses such as freeing the Iraqi people, or spreading democracy in the region were provided. Ultimately however, countless lives have been directly changed on account of specific actions taken without much consideration to possible outcomes of events. The civilian lives that have been taken in Iraq as a direct result of these actions, along with the billions of lives in the world that have changed, are the result of one man's determined and faulty mind. When we elect those who are supposed to represent the people, we rarely consider just how much power we are providing them. These people shape the future of the world. Going back to Bush's example, not only did his invasion cost over 3200 American soldier's lives, it also cost over 100,000 Iraqi civilian lives, and indirectly, the infinite lives of those who would have been born had their predecessors not have been killed. Perhaps one of those soldiers would have fathered (or mothered) a child who would have discovered the cure for AIDS. All of these potential human beings will never exist because their parents were killed as a result of a few poor decisions. What would the world have been like if Gandhi's father was killed by the British? Or how different would civil rights in the United States have been had Martin Luther King's mother been lynched? What if Philip of Macedon, Alexander the Great's Father, been killed in an intradynastic feud? All of these questions become obvious when we realize that each person has the potential to influence countless other lives, either positively or negatively. Most of us influence lives completely oblivious to the chain of events that unfold, but other's have so much power, that their decisions determine the course of human history a thousand fold as compared to ours. Although we are all able to determine the course of history because just being alive and interacting with the world changes the causality of the situation, the scale at which we do it can differ. Those who hold the reigns of authority have the power at larger scales then others. We are enabling them to determine the fate of the world, and are oblivious to the nature of their capabilities.

Ultimately, causality cascades can be found in the same uncertain philosophical grounds as notions of morality such as good and bad. Attempting to define causality cascades as good, and other's as bad can seem like a moot point, considering our ignorance at the ultimate effects our actions may take. However, just being aware of the profound multilayered interactions of our lives can be illuminating in itself. Knowing that defining such events as good and bad can become a lesson in futility, the act of defining cannot be completely dismissed when taken in an attempt at furthering our thinking. The traits that have allowed human beings to transcend simple instinctual urges, and have allowed us to pause and reflect, are thus furthered with the knowledge and questions that we ask about our nature. Causality cascades are an important aspect of self definition and growth because we have the heightened senses to be capable of the awareness of our actions and the possible consequences they may entail. Yet, just because the potential exists for such deep introspection, the application of it is based on an individual basis. Most of us have the tools to further our understanding of the universe and ourselves, but because of various barriers and filters (Such as certain religious beliefs, cultural nuances, social standing, and serendipity of living comfortable enough lives to be so introspective), many are not able to exercise such potential. The most unfortunate side effect of this wealth of potential, is that those who should be required to tap these tools within us live their lives thirsting for material gains, power control and petty squabbles that don't matter much to the greater world. By this, I mean the elected "representatives" of the world. How long will we allow these bickering, selfish, self absorbed, narcisstic, and ineffective individuals ruin our futures before we stand up and fight? We are lead to believe that the most important things in life are acquisition of wealth, and superficial trappings of civilization, when in fact, we're ignorant of the greater good that society can offer. We are so entrenched in our immediate lives, that we're ignorant of the greater potential for humanity. We watch news to uncover updates on Anna Nicole Smith and Paris Hilton, when in fact, we should be concerned about the advancement of our species and the survival of our planet. In the end, the future of the world will rest with how we define ourselves, and come to understand the consequences of our actions upon the planet. Just like a butterflies wings, small effects can have enormous unintended consequences. We are all small effects, but we're not inconsequential. After all, causality cascades cannot rule out the potential for even one human being (further reducing that idea, such cascades cannot even rule out the behavior of an atom, but with human beings, our actions can be consciously analyzed, and reflected upon).


*Quantum Theory in Physics describes the interaction and effects among subatomic particles.

Charles Darwin: Myth from Reality

Through countless conversations with most intelligent people who are not well versed in topics of Evolutionary Biology, I have come across a thread of resistance because of who they think Charles Darwin Represents.

To many, Charles Darwin is an antagonistic entity, bent on destroying faith, and relegating mankind to nothing but oblivion. Some philosophers, having absorbed evolution and natural selection have become Nihilists, envisioning no purpose in life, and exhibiting the lack of hope associated with their lack of faith in anything. It's easy to fall prey to hopelessness when one's faith and beliefs are shattered, but as I have attempted to explain in my previous essay, just because we find ourselves insignificant to the universal order of things, it does not mean we are insignificant to each other. What matters is our relationship to those around us and our world. The Earth is our only home, and every human being who has ever existed was born here (paraphrasing Carl Sagan). Perhaps one day, there will be other worlds to inhabit and other places humans will be born, but until that day is here, our planet is the most significant thing in the universe because it is tied to our existence.

What Charles Darwin uncovered, was the process through which we came to exist on this planet that has and will, for the foreseeable future, be our home. The process of Evolution through Natural Selection has existed on Earth for Billions of years. In fact, it's possible that life on Earth in its infancy was seeded from perhaps rudimentary amino acids, or even something as complex as bacteria, from outside our planet. Yet, this does not change the fact that for at least the last 3.5 billion years, organisms have evolved to inhabit every corner of our planet. Darwin is vilified for any number of reasons, but all he did was uncover a process that had existed with or without his scientific contribution. Darwin did not invent Evolution because it had existed before him. Many religious extremists will deny these facts, but that is in large part to their ignorance as it pertains to science, and biology. We don't celebrate Charles Darwin's discovery because it destroys the faith in some people, but we celebrate it for helping us better understand the world that we live in. When Newton and subsequently Einstein described the laws and function of gravity, they only helped uncover forces that had existed since the dawn of the universe. Scientists are ultimately detectives who after coming across clues and evidence, eventually build a better picture of the world to help solve certain mysteries. We should appreciate the fact that those very same evolutionary processes that help a dolphin or bat to echo-locate, or a snake to swallow pray larger then their heads, also helped shape and force our minds to communicate through language. We can't fall into the trap of expecting a miraculous or divine process to suddenly develop language in an upright largely hairless ape. We were lucky enough to be shaped by our environment to communicate effectively and intelligently with each other. We can convey such complexities through words alone, that in of itself, is an amazing development. Just because it's amazing however, does not make it miraculous. It's true that some aspects of this development are still uncertain, but through rigorous testing, simulating and understanding, we will get that much closer to perceiving these natural processes.

Philosophical Musings from An Agnostic Perspective

One danger in expanding one's view of the universe, is the troublesome aspect of insignificance. When one looks at the grandeur of the universal; at its utter vastness, we are confounded, and forced to find words to describe the length and breadth. We use words such as Infinite, and Boundless, with distances in the light years and parsecs. We cannot fathom the expanse of it all, and yet, it is all around us. We are barely able to come to terms with our place in the order of things without including religion to uncover some significance of our being. Looking at something in such magnitude, it is no wonder that many are forced to concede to some unattainable, omnipresent force that keeps some form of order. We cannot believe just how insignificant our existence means to the universe, so we invent concepts to inflate our egos and put ourselves on pedestals above other creatures. We are so convinced of our own superiority, that once the reality of our place in the universe really sinks in; once the insignificance of our lives in the universe may mean to the rest of the universe, we become nihilistic entities, giving up on what should be the most amazing realization. The universe does not need human beings to function as it does now, so we aren't important to its composition, but what we forget is that our sentience gives us the ability to probe the vastness of it all.

Going back 500 years, even learned theorists had mostly thought the Earth to be the center of the universe. After Copernicus, we came to terms with the sun being the center of our planetary system, yet the downgrading was just beginning. Soon, we realized that the solar system was but one of billions in our own galaxy, and less then 100 years ago, we came to know (thanks to Edwin Hubble) our galaxy, the Milky Way, to be one of Billions. Not only is the sun an ordinary star, but the galaxy that we live in is not much different then millions of others. Our sun is about half way away from the center of the galaxy, rotating every 250 million years or so around the center, and for most of Earth's existence, life was oblivious to all of this. Therein lies the kernel of philosophical salvation. We as human beings, may be insignificant to the universe as a whole, but we are significant to each other. Just as an ant may seem insignificant to human beings, its existence within the colony is more significant then its existence to us. Thus, existence itself is a relative concept. The trend towards nihilism is easily reversed when we realize just how fortunate we are to contemplate our place in the vastness of the universe.

Before delving into the improbability and wonder of our existence, an important clarification must be made. I am not leading up to a support in existence of some sort of deity, or supernatural force. It may seem that way at first, since we're trained to automatically assume that anything improbably must be a result of something beyond ourselves, but in this case, this is not the conclusion I am achieving to reach. As a functional agnostic (separate from the philosophical agnostic, which is an actual belief structure), I am neither in support or in denial of the existence of what some may call God, others the Holy Spirit, or whatever unseen force may be guiding things. My goal is to highlight just how amazing our universe is, and how we must embrace the existence of other's like ourselves who can similarly appreciate it.

In order for our atoms to have formed in the manner in which they did, our Universe had to have the right physical qualities to ensure our existence. The strong nuclear force, holding the intrinsic properties in our atoms (Quarks) together, must be the specific field strength that it is. If it differed by even a millionth, our universe would not be able to form the stars that eventually formed the heavy atoms that resulted in our bodies. There are thousands of other physical qualities that must be as specific as they are for our universe to resemble what it does today. Had the matter in the beginning of our universe not won out over anti-matter, there wouldn't be anything to build atoms with. Consider the fact that matter just barely edged out anti-matter during the initial stages of the universe's growth. Only 1 particle of matter out of a million was able to escape the mutual annihilation to eventually dominate the battlefield. Furthermore, had the laws of expansion been any different (Hubble's Constant), the universe would collapse on itself or expand out so quickly, there would be no time to form the matter in which we see today. Similarly, changes in the gravitational force, or the electromagnetic, would equally alter the universe in which we live, making life all but even less possible.

Coming back down to Earth, even the process of evolution, if changed at any link along the chain, would not result in human beings dominating the planet today. Indeed, we are fortunate enough to be here contemplating our existence, considering all the possible outcomes where homo Sapien would not have evolved to consciously dissect the physical world, and attempt to find the processes that resulted in our being. As an example, had dinosaurs survived the cretatious/tertiary extinction event, mammals would have probably remained in their small nocturnal states. Had a supernova exploded near our system 500 million years ago, perhaps the first multicellular organisms would have been wiped away, and life would evolve in a different manner. There are just so many possible thought experiments to go through, and all of which yielding to the conclusion that our existence, though not impossible, is quite near improbable. Had the clock been turned back to the first instance of Universal expansion, things would certainly have turned out differently. The probability of humans re-evolving as we have would be next to near impossible. Our lives are indeed special, and although compared to the vastness of the universe, we may not make much of an impact, we certainly effect the bearings of others like us. We are in effect, relatively important to each other, and should people sheathed in anger, just pause and appreciate the improbability of our existence, they would come to realize how to treat others. Although war is a product of our inherent genetic predisposition for territorial supremacy (among many other genetic causes), we have culturally evolved through philosophical thought, ethical and moral progressiveness, to understand the consequences of our actions, and think beyond our cold genes. We realize how important the environment is in shaping our genes, and ultimately, with prime importance, we know that cultural growth can extend beyond our genetic tendencies.

If more people strived to understand the physical nature of our universe, we would realize that although our position in the vastness of this infinite structure is infinitesimally small, our relation to each other is equally as vast. Perhaps one day, the human race will be in position to extend our influence beyond just our own planet, but those days will be forever lost when we continue destroying each other, and lying to ourselves about the nature of things. It may be easier for some, without a solid background in the sciences, to sit at home and decide that the diversity of the species on earth, and the beauty (from our perspective) of the universe, have a divine cause, then to look at the majesty of life and the universe and realize the physical processes that shaped it. Let us not take credit away from the physical forces of nature that helped shape our being, when it's easier to decide that just because we don't understand the physical world, it needs a supernatural explanation. To some, not enough has been explained to appreciate the beauty of the physical world as it is without resorting to some paranormal or supernatural belief. Yet with enough knowledge of the workings of our universe (without the meddlesome nature of religion), we may come to appreciate our fellow human being more then religion has allowed us to do. After all, religion in context of culture and evolution is a unifying force in grouping human begins within extended clans. Once we realize this, and move beyond religion and into the realm of what we can scientifically test and validate, people will become more appreciative of others. It is my experience, that those involved in the field of sciences tend to be the least socially judgmental and the most accepting of individuals. I am not discounting something beyond our physical world, but since we cannot test or validate the existence of that, then they stay in the realm of philosophy and belief. Beliefs can be shattered (such as the world is flat), but physical truths cannot (such as the laws of gravity). It's possible for scientific theories to be invalidated, or refined, but ultimately, there are physical laws that exist which we must uncover. With beliefs, they don't function in that manner. There are 6.2 billion people on the planet all with different sets of beliefs, and although groups of those people can be placed together along similar beliefs, each individual is ultimately an island in what they believe. Some grouped closer then others, but just because there are majority beliefs, don't necessarily validate those. If as an hypothetical example, 2 billion people today believed that the Earth was still flat, that would not necessarily make the Earth flat. With the physical world, it's not majority belief, but the uncovering of what the actuality is. There are physical truths that are unalterable. The same physical principles that govern the nature of our sun, are the same all across the universe. We can be certain that those physical laws apply the same everywhere. The speed of light should invariably be the same here as it should be 50 quintillion parsecs away in any direction. The properties that govern stellar evolution should be the same all across the spectrum. Similarly, closer to Earth, evolution as a process should function the same now as it did billions of years ago (with random mutations, and natural selection: aka survival of the fittest). That's the beauty of the universe; the mysteries left to uncover that allow us to understand aspects all across the infinite expanse.

The Next Possible Terror Event

Thinking of the unfavorable response that the current Bush Administration has received in their handling of Iraq, Afghanistan, foreign, as well as domestic policy, something substantial and unbelievable must occur to keep them in power. In this case, when I say "them", I mean the Neo-conservatives who have distorted the constitution and run amuck with the power that they've managed to extract from the Judicial, Legislative, and of course, the Executive Branch of government. Only now has this unilateral power surge started to wane. Yet, those with vast control of power cannot readily allow the reigns to weaken.

With the 2008 Presidential Elections fast approaching, the Neo-conservatives must devise a new strategic plan to cope with the possible shift in power. Naturally, the best course of action is for another planned terror event to scare the public, and enable the Fascists in disguise (Neo-Cons) to continue dominating American, as well as the worldwide political landscape.

Of the various scenarios that can possibly occur, I have come up with one that will not only allow the Administration to extend their Illegal war outside of Iraq, but to also quell Domestic policy regarding Illegal Immigration and resolve the Border Fence issue. What I envision is a "terror attack" on one of the Nuclear Power Plants. I don't believe the attacks will be done for success as much as national fear. A truckload of explosives with the potential of mass destruction is all that will be required. Of all the Nuclear reactors, I believe San Onofre:
(http://www.sce.com/PowerandEnvironment/PowerGeneration/SanOnofreNuclearGeneratingStation/default.htm?goto=songs), in Southern California, will be one of the prime target. Considering the short distance to the "porous" Mexican border, and the population density of the region, San Onofre should be avoided in the first half of 2008. Since the National Elections (Presidential Included) will be in November of 2008, the staged event, in order to be most politically effective, would probably happen 6-9 months prior to the Elections.

Like most current Nuclear Generating Plants, the actual reactors in San Onofre are housed in thick, reinforced concrete to contain a moderate sized meltdown. These concrete casings are generally too strong to be substantially damaged, but the potential impact of an attempt at damage will suffice for the mass hysteria of the public. After the incident, fear will grip many Americans, and we will be reminded of the porous nature of the border. We will find that these "terrorists" probably arrived through the border illegally, and therefore, we must reinforce and expedite the current security fence. Not only will Domestic Policy become malleable as foreign policy was under the Bush Administration, but we will also come to realize that the terrorists were funded by Syrians, or even possibly Iranians. Considering that Iran would be a likely scapegoat, and doubt would surface, Syria is probably a better patsy for the terrorists. Realizing that they "came" from Syria, we would launch political initiatives to coerce Syria into allowing us on their soil to search for evidence. Naturally, Syria would deny these incursions, and the US would launch an air campaign against a few targets on Syrian soil. Naturally, this would infuriate the region, with the hope that Iran would become involved. Once Iran's support for Syria becomes evident, the Administration will finally be able to quell their perceived enemies there as well. Thinking that they're making the world safer for American and subsequently Israeli greed, there would be no stopping the inevitable.

Naturally, this scenario is somewhat of a slippery slope, but the possibility that this can become reality is enough to be concerned. In a previous article, I had stated that diplomacy is the only recourse in this situation, yet, every possibly scenario planned by the current Administration purposely attempts at circumventing and ultimately impeding diplomacy. The possibility that multi-level talks with Iran and Syria may prove fruitful are not seriously on the Administrations agenda because it would upset the Israeli's, especially the Israeli Lobby in America. Since politicians think first with their pocket books, and very distantly for the national interest, it is but inevitable that the contributions they receive from the Israeli lobby should remain a primary source. A solution to all of this, as I've explained before, would be the end to political contributions. Politicians should NOT be swayed by special interests, and the only way to maintain honesty is to prevent them from making any money. Politicians should instead, live in Dormitories in the Capitol, and be present for at least 90% of their sessions. They have an important job to do, and they mustn’t be distracted by prestigious vacations but must work like the rest of us.

In the next blog, I shall attempt to expand on the idea of the steps to take for an honest congress. The system cannot remain as it is, because these politicians are far removed from mainstream thinking. This is why the thought that they can easily be swayed by special interests on the event that another possible terror incident is revealed, is frightening to say the least.

Why I Blog

Throughout the course of human history, there have been many breakthrough moments in culture and thought. Through the last 10,000 years, most of us have gone from primitive agricultural and pastoral lives to the modern world we see around us. We have developed tools to probe the universe with, technology to travel interplanetary distances, communication to interconnect the globe, and the knowledge and accumulated wisdom of millennia.

In times past, technological breakthroughs were slow in development, and diffused at a glacial pace. The means of communication that we've grown so accustomed with were virtually unheard 150 years prior to our current generation. Communication by horse lead to communication by train, then telegraph, telephone, internet, etc. These rapid communication advancements have allowed for a great deal of shared information and development. With the world literally at our fingertips, we have built a complex interconnected web of information and knowledge. Prior to this vast information basin, advancement often met a brick wall and resulted in numerous dead ends. During the Chalcolithic (Copper) Age, human beings had begun to smelt copper, out of the minerals that had been present in surface rocks. The discovery, eventually heralding the Bronze age, although rapid by geological standards, was slow compared to the power of communication in the present day. It took well over a thousand years for the process of smelting copper and then bronze to spread from Anatolia and the Near East, to Greece, Central and Western Europe, Northern Africa, and Asia. The process developed over time to involve various techniques and methods to achieve the temperatures needed to melt metallic minerals into their purer forms.

The greatest amount of accumulated knowledge occurred during the advent of the Written Age. Writing has to be one of the most important tools in the human arsenal for communication. As more of the general public began to become literate, a larger amount of people were able to contribute to the pool of ideas and technology. Advancements began to proceed at paces only dreamt of centuries earlier. Before literacy crept upon the general populace, many ideas now proven correct took a back seat to wild theories. The microscopic structure of the world was initially defined by many theories and ideas, yet, the most applicable was that of Democritus, who was one of the first to theorize about the existence of the atom (over 2000 years prior). It's specifically because of the written knowledge passed down to us that we're aware of Democritus' near prophetic theories. The possibility that other philosophers and theorists had explained the existence of the atom before Democritus cannot be eliminated. Chances are, others may have had similar ideas, but because of the difficulty in transmitting the information (even through writing), those records have not survived to the present day. Even with the idea of the atom, it was Aristotle's view of the four elements that stalled many aspects of science and technology for well over 1500 years. Another applicable example, involving the theoretical and influential world of Greeks, and that of our own Modern Age, was Medicine. Although highly advanced during the Greek Era, it wasn't until Galen's written texts (Roman Era) of human anatomy that the Zenith of Medicine was thought to have reached. He was so convinced of his theory’s superiority, that he said any further work in the area would be an insult to all of humanity. Galen wrote texts with pictures and anatomical features that he thought described human beings. The studies he used was that of other animals, since dissecting a human being was considered forbidden. Modern Anatomical Medicine didn't really advance again until Andreas Vesalius (mid 1500's), a headstrong and anti-authoritarian anatomist began to challenge Galen's work. Due to the religious restrictions on the treatment of corpses, the Middle Ages saw very little breakthroughs in human anatomy. Thanks to the partial liberalization of religious restriction and the allowance of executed criminals to serve as cadavers, Vesalius was able to determine anatomical features missing from Galen's written accounts. With the pace of Medicine advancing again, we were finally able to delay, and to some extent control, the greatest force of nature. Death, having been a foe that seemed inescapable was suddenly becoming less of a concern. Although unavoidable, we were finally able to diagnose, heal, treat and cure diseases, and the agents (parasites, bacteria, viruses, fungi, etc.) which often brought about an "untimely" demise.

However, through fires and various other catastrophes, many ancient written records, that could have provided us with a greater amount of historical data and knowledge, perished. Even with the possibility of written information being destroyed, the chances for technological advancement were greater then if those records had never been produced. Some that were destroyed found audience in other languages, the translation having come down to us, even with the original having been eliminated. Written information for most of its inception was also heavily biased. Often times, the records that reach us have been those of the victor, and our attempts at consolidating history can be marred by inaccuracies. Yet, even with biased historical records, a lot of context could be revealed, and a greater objective understanding of the forces involved could become apparent.

Compared to the geological time frame of Modern Homo Sapien evolution (about 200,000 years), the lives of individual humans is but a mere blink of the eye. Billions of human beings have come and gone, variations in climate has existed, new species have evolved and become extinct, and yet, our experiences with time allow for more of the same to happen. Just as the fossil record is written in the very ground (land and sea bed) that once occupied all the animals that ever existed on Earth, the record of human achievement is written in the books and knowledge that has also accumulated chronologically. Even our genes don't really matter, because over the course of a few generations, they are diluted to some random genetic consistency very different from our exact sequences. What survives past one's lifetime are thoughts and ideas. Naturalist, and one of the leaders of modern day Evolutionary theory, Richard Dawkins has explained this cultural trait, similar to genetic code in evolution, as a "meme". A meme, just like a gene, is a snippet of information that is able to replicate and transfer its information to the next generation. In terms of a gene, it's the gene's ability to generally out compete other genes and transfer it's information to the next generation. Meme's function very similarly, but the replicating information is not nucleic acids (like DNA and RNA in genes), but thoughts and ideas. Those thoughts and ideas that out compete others to remain in circulation are the successful ones; not unlike survival of the fittest under Darwinian Natural Selection. A great tool to help perpetuate those memes that are truly beneficial is science. Through critical thinking and the scientific theory, scientifically relevant memes can be tested against others, until one that is superior to others can be produced and replicated. Eventually, further additions will help focus the meme into more and more specific information. It's as though a beneficial mutation in DNA will result in advantages that can be focused to near perfection. The Eye is an example of a structure, that through a half billion years has evolved from a disk of light sensitive cells, to the variation we see in all the creatures today.

Having digressed far from the title heading, if it hasn't become apparent already, I must explain my humble reasons for blogging. Long after we're all dead and gone, few of us will have any individual impact on the future of the world. Although we're all contributing to greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, and our massive ecological footprints, taken together, contributes in exhausting the raw materials of the Earth, our individual achievements will become just a passing whisper in time. Our atoms will eventually disperse back into the universe, and our individual being will have vanished. As bleak as all this sounds, it may be that only the information and knowledge we leave behind will survive in some form into the future. It is our duty and obligation, having come this far, through countless near misses with fate (extinction events such as asteroid collisions that paved the way for us, or minor climatic changes that resulted in our enlarged brains and eventual cultural growth and sentience, even personal brushes with fate such as car accidents, stupid juvenile snowboard tricks to impress the girls, that trampoline accident when you nearly severed your head, etc), to further our knowledge base and expand beyond individual capacity. If all the information that human beings had collected was somehow preserved, then life would not be in vain. How many people lived through life, with all the information spinning in their heads, died having left nothing for other's to feed off? No matter how much one writes, or attempts to present collected and gathered information in various perspectives (some perhaps never thought of before), there will always be a residual amount lost. Even with this loss, the possibility that some of these theories, thoughts, and ideas will help to perpetuate certain necessary meme's (whether to create new ones or strengthen and elaborate upon existing ones), remains a prime reason for attempting to pass on as much accumulated knowledge as possible. After all, attempting to quench one's thirst for knowledge can never be fully satisfying, unless it's processed and released.

The Russia and Syria Blame Bandwagon

Considering the blatant speculation and misinformation spreading through the American media establishment, it's no surprise that so many people have already passed judgment and guilt upon notable entities within recent years. I shall present two examples that clearly illuminate the acrimonious reactions present. However, because of our increased information onslaught, many important items are easily forgotten when another equally if not more compelling item is presented. The information I will present will involve some historical background to counter the overexposure and public weariness of occurrences with significant notoriety.

Due to the bombardment of a certain high profile story in recent news, my first case will involve Russia -- more specifically the Russian President Vladimir Putin. In two separate incidents spanning just over two years, the burden of guilt lay heavily on the Russian Secret Service, and ultimately, Putin. During the Autumn of 2004, Ukraine was undergoing an election to determine the direction of its political future. The two candidates in question were involved in a tightly contested battle, differing on many issues, but highlighted by the candidate's foreign outlook. Viktor Yushchenko, having held the position of Prime Minister previously, and his rival, Viktor Yanukovych, the outgoing Prime Minister, were primed for a heated election. Yushchenko was showing hostility towards Russia (Ukraine's primary arguable ally) and initiating closer ties to the West, while Yanukovych attempted to forge even closer ties with Russia, both economically and politically. Yanukovych was declared the winner initially, but due to a high level of election fraud the voting results were overturned and once the dust settled Yushchenko was ceremoniously declared the winner. His victory, signaled a radical shift in policy away from Russia, hailed as the "Orange Revolution" throughout the Media. Through all this, Yushchenko was undergoing mysterious physical changes to his skin, which eventually lead to the discovery that he was poisoned by a heavy dose of Dioxin (a toxic organic compound). Considering his opposition to Putin, the blame for the poisoning fell upon Russia's Secret Service, and ultimately Putin. With months of investigation and countless inquiries, the true perpetrators of this crime have remained a mystery. There are no paths leading to even to the remotest shred of evidence linking Putin and Russia's spy services to this case.

The Second case involving a Media Blitz against Russia and Putin occurred with the radioactive poisoning death, in London, of the former Russian spy Alexander Litvinenko. His gruesome death from radiation poisoning expeditiously circulated around the world. The attention caused from the nature of this act cannot go unnoticed. Polonium 210, the highly radioactive substance used is not the most efficient method of assassination. For one thing, it leaves a detectable trail of radioactivity, and with a half life of about 4 months, it degrades quickly, releasing enough radioactivity to leave a trail. Furthermore, Po 210 is not a common substance, and must be produced and used within a short period of time. In this instance, the rumors linking Litvinenko's death to Putin are more substantial, considering his public announcement of Putin's guilt in the matter. Alexander Litvinenko was one of Putin's most vocal critics, yet, rationalizing his attention grabbing death and linking it to Putin is a reach. Putin used to be one of the most up-and-coming KGB spies during the Soviet Union, and his methods of dispatch would be a lot more subtle. A death like this will only draw attention to the situation, and unlike fictional spies like James Bond, a true intelligence officers primary duty is to remain covert. Actions and even consequences must remain covert, so as not to draw any attention.

To understand Russia's role, one has to dig a little deep and reason who has most to gain for the developments. In Litvinenko's death, Putin loses a critic, but at what price? The finger of culpability is pointing towards him, and his political life will be marred with the linkage to this death. There is no long term benefit for Putin or Russia in such a high profile death. Speaking of the same, Yushchenko's Dioxin poisoning was also quite high profile, yet subtler. It is possible that there was a possible linkage to Russia, but that angle was downplayed, considering the lack of evidence. In this instance, the West also had something to gain by publicizing the poisoning of Yushchenko. The Orange Revolution was considered to be a political shift in climate away from Russian influence, and by "martyrizing" him, the ill will towards Russia would grow profoundly. In both cases, the West could be equally as culpable as Russia, if not more. One final food for thought, a possible link connecting Litvinenko to Israel has been downplayed by every Media organization (http://www.debka.com/headline.php?hid=3540). There is valid justification for attempting to gather further evidence in this case before rushing to judgment on the blame train.

Having spoken of Russia already, it's best to begin dissecting the Second major entity blamed with no substantiation. In this instance, Syria will present as the second example of the absurdity and misinformation associated with media rumor mongering. To be more specific, there have been 2 assassinations of anti-Syrian individuals in the Lebanese government with the blame falling on Syria's supposed involvement. On the day of February 14, 2005, former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri was assassinated in a vehicular explosion when 1000 kg of TNT were detonated as his convoy was driving. Without any direct proof, the blame for Hariri's assassination fell upon Syria. The reasoning was that Hariri was anti-Syrian and pro Western, so his assassination would quiet a vocal critic of Syria and Syrian Influence. The benefit to Syria however, was far outweighed by the reality of the post-assassinated situation. A lot of pro-Syrian sentiment in Lebanese political circles began to wane, with more and more of the public demonstrating for the ouster of Syrian troops. Naturally, within months of the assassination, not one Syrian troop remained in Lebanon. With Syria gone, the "Cedar Revolution" had started to flower, and all would be well in Lebanon. As with most things, instead of improving for the good, with Syria gone, Israel did not have time to blink before they were ready to bomb and reoccupy Southern Lebanon. Although the reason for invasion involved the alleged "cross-border" raid into Israel by Hezbollah militants to kidnap Israeli soldiers, Israel's response was unbelievably brutal. Besides the US' support for Israel's actions, the UN and most countries were highly of Israel's bloody escalation. It seems as though Syria's withdrawal lead to greater problems in Lebanon then solved. Yet, to this day, the facts of the matter have never lead anywhere in Syria's direction and, by and large, the only people still entertaining the thought of Syria's direct involvement are Israeli, American, and anti-Syrian Lebanese politicians.

The blame directed towards Syria had just about run its course when suddenly, another assassination of a high level Lebanese official took place. Pierre Amine Gemayel, an anti-Syrian proponent was attacked by a well armed group in November 21, 2006. Again, the finger points to Syria, thanks in large part to anti-Syrian sentiment. The possibility of Syria being involved in this case, like the previous cannot be completely excluded, but the fallout directed towards Syria does not result in any benefits. Sure, an additional voice of Syrian opposition was silenced, yet, at what cost? Syria, like Russia, has the aura of blame cast upon itself, and in no way improves the political situation and stability. In regards to who has more to gain, it's those who are being mobilized into building a great deal of anger and hate towards Syria. Lebanon is nearing the brink of civil war, with Israel and the US backing anti-Syrian sentiment, and Hezbollah, backing anti-US and anti-Israeli sentiment within Lebanese borders. Under the current administration and Israeli doctrine, a divided Lebanon entrenched in civil war, destabilizing the region, and resulting in further polarization of the world, is better then a Lebanon with Hezbollah (Which Israel itself created by occupying Lebanon in the first place). It comes down to the fact that it doesn't matter how badly the rest of the world is jeopardized, as long as Israel and the Neo-Cons are happy.

Ultimately then, politically motivated assassinations gain more anger and hate, further mobilizing the opposition, and do greater harm then good. Properly conducted assassinations do not appear as such, and tend to stay under media radar. In order to fully understand events unfolding in the world, it's best to understand the issues, and reason out the scenario. It's best to start asking questions by inquiring as to Who has the most to gain? Do the benefits of such acts outweigh the consequences? Is the act so visible and shocking as to garner greater attention on itself and it's supposed perpetrator? Why is the Media so compliant in chasing after rumor and suspicion, instead of exercising objectivity and reasoning? These are the types of questions that must be answered to fully comprehend an issue. Political powers, although dense at times, and frequently conflicted, are not stupid. These are people who have built careers in manipulating others, and developing a sense of self-preservation. They fight and claw to remain in power, and visible acts such as the ones explained in this blog (among countless others) only do more damage. It's amazing how many parallels can be drawn between the events that transpired towards anti-Russian crowds, and those with anti-Syrian affiliation. Thoughts and conflict, skepticism and critical thinking are tools that help navigate through these troubled waters.

Regardless of how the Influentials (such as the media, the elite, politicians, etc.) attempt to distort reality, the truth is there to be uncovered. One is not a conspiracy monger when deciding on gathering information with a skeptical mind. As thoughtful as my humble blogs may be, I hope that every individual reading can look at the facts and use their own judgment to reach a conclusion. Perhaps those conclusions are different then mine, and perhaps they are complete polar opposites, but as long as the facts are properly analyzed, there will always be room for debate. That's what leads to understanding and advancement.

Two Bridges for Peace

Watching British Parliament on the Political Cable Network, I couldn't help but notice the honest debate and somewhat combative nature of politics in the UK. Especially for Tony Blaire, as Prime Minister, he must defend his actions and policies from both the opposition and those in his party. At times, it's comical due to the reaction from the members of parliament (awws, and boos), and others, it's very educational. Within one hour of watching the session, one begins to grasp the forces and politics involved. It becomes very difficult to defend one's position when constantly bombarded with disapproval and questions. The biggest realization is the lack of interest in American politics. Without such debate, the political process in the United States is as dry as it can possibly be, with very little improvement. If Bush had to stand up to the scrutiny of his policies in session, the situation would be completely different. In actuality however, due to the difference between the British Government and the US, the role of Prime Minister is not the same as that of the President. The Executive Branch of the US government can be as exclusive as it wants, or as willing to pressure the Legislative Branch. Real Checks and Balances, which were intended to allow for accountability cannot be found in the current American Political system.

The difference between a Statesman and a Bureaucrat is that a Statesman can represent himself clearly, directly, and confidently. Various world leaders can be categorized under either of these two governing methods. A statesmen is a good representation of his/her country, often times considered a populist. Bureaucrats on the other hand, cannot express themselves with clarity, and often times, have no political charisma. As an Example, Bush would fall well into the Bureaucrat category. With his lack of insight, narrow focus, and difficulty in bridging political gaps, he is the quintessential paper pusher. Pressing his agenda through manipulation and governance through power, greed, and corruption. Tony Blaire, however, with all his faults and weaknesses is the essential Statesman. He can Represent his position clearly, with complex language, and a learned knowledge basis. A leader should not represent the average segment of the population, but must excel at every level. In order to compete in the world, and strive to understand and attain such complex insights, a leader must have qualities that are lacking in Bush.

For all of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's (the President of Iran) faults, his diplomatic skills cannot be underestimated. Bush, believing his beliefs to be superior to others could not begin to address the diplomatic savvy needed to combat the ills of the world. His stance on Israeli Aggression on the Palestinians, his virtual ignorance of South American Policy, and blind eye to the plight of Africa, are just a few examples. In the course of the last year, Ahmadinejad has attempted to extend a bridge of diplomacy with the United States. He has written two letters, one addressed to Bush, and another to the American People. Although part of his position can be argued, his genuine attempt at diplomatic conversation is a greater achievement then Bush's cold shoulder. It's unfortunate that a developing nation, holding the potential of regional power is completely ignored by the United States, thanks in large part for the benefit of Israel. As repugnant as Ahmadinejad's remarks can be, his attempt at diplomacy and regional cooperation cannot be excluded. Iran does hold a lot of sway, and can positively effect the stability of the region. However, with the US and Israel pressuring Iran, there is very little stability to be reached.

The following links are directed towards the unaltered letters sent by Ahmadinejad.

The first one, posted on May 9, 2006 -- directed to Bush
http://edition.cnn.com/interactive/world/0605/transcript.lemonde.letter/

The second one, posted on November 29, 2006 -- directed to the American People
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/11/29/ahmadinejad.letter/

A careful reading of these letters will help illustrate the nature of a Statesman (even with certain faults deemed inexcusable). Reaching out, and putting Ego aside to attempt at establishing diplomatic relations is a Stately thing to do. Lying to your people on a daily basis, while perpetuation the same tired jargon, endlessly, and ignorantly till the world is exhausted of resources and hope, is what a Bureaucrat does.

Antagonism of Zionism

With so much talk and discussion about the state of the world, many words and phrases become tainted with antagonism and disgust. Much has changed through the last few centuries, but a lot has also remained the same. Human nature, which can be slowly molded and shaped cannot change to extremes, especially when masses are involved. Individuals can vary, and some will produce brilliant insights, but when a group of individuals are introduced, the variability of so many human beings becomes a very strong factor for a quasi-static equilibrium. In other words, the extremes in the spectrum, although strong when considered individually are diluted with the buffered middle ground. As with most stable systems, the outliers are far less numerous then the middle ground. Nothing explains this systemic formula better then language. Words especially, can be so powerful, as to significantly shape history. A few key words which I will address in this essay will be Zionism and Judaism (I would address anti-Semitism, but have already done so in a prior essay); explaining the differences and similarities of the terms, and helping to clarify a reasoned and thoughtful position.

Due to the situation in the world today, it's absolutely vital to first, elucidate the facts behind a philosophy called Zionism. This one word is heavily loaded with connotative meaning and can be used through instances ranging from vilification, to anger, pride, cultural kinship, etc. Through many of my previous essays, I have used the word negatively, but in a context outside cultural or religious exclusivity. As with any philosophical entity, Zionism can have positive and negative context, but due to the nature of the current political, religious, and social system, few positives can be gleamed from the modern incarnation and ultimate meaning behind the term. As with any philosophical entity, Zionism competes to influence as many people as possible. Just as Capitalism competes with Socialism and Communism, Zionism competes with other forms of philosophical thought. It just so happens that those other forms are extremely diverse, sharing only the lack of such specifics found in Zionism amongst themselves.

Ultimately, a good place to start is to attempt to define what Zionism is in itself. I will avoid quoting the dictionary meaning because ultimately, if one wishes, they can readily reference any sources to find the appropriate definition. Therefore, in the broader socio-historical context, Zionism is a type of nationalism. It arose in the late 19th century; a time of worldwide nationalistic awakening. In a time when various small states where organizing into countries based on ethnic, social and linguistic ties, the map of the world was constantly being drawn and redrawn. Countries such as Germany arose out of the combined common states of the region, and vied for dominance with those of others, such as the Prussians, Poles, Russians, Austrians, Hungarians, Yugoslavians (in the nationalism context of the time). These trends did not go unnoticed in the population of Jews that lived in those regions. They had looked at the world changing around them, strengthening through nationalism, and realized that a similar trend within would have to start. With these benign origins, many unfortunate circumstances occurred to where the term now generally garners suspicion and negativity. The greatest disservice to Zionism was the establishment of the State of Israel with little thought to the displaced people of Palestine. The land that was once largely occupied by Semitic Palestinian Arabs, was established as a haven for mainly European Jews. Few of them had any genetic and biological ties to the region, with only a vague sense of religion tying them to those lands. Being such an unstable place, surrounded by those angered at the displacement of Palestinians (which also effected the economies of the Arab neighbor states), Israel needed the support of Europe and ultimately the United States. With the world opening its eyes and realizing that the United States has unilaterally supported Israel, regardless of human rights abuses, aggression upon its neighbors, and other antagonistic moves, many have developed a resentment and hatred. It's not often hatred based on the religion itself, but on the political entity, which ultimately becomes entangled and undistinguished from the religion. Judaism itself, being an organized religion has many faults, just as Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and a host of others. Faulting people for being religious is especially easy, when one feels partial to reason, and does not believe organized religion benefits the human condition. When Judaism is taken in religious context, then when one applies detrimental effects towards organized religion, Judaism cannot be excluded. Semantically speaking however, a Jew does not by necessity have to practice organized religion. It can be applied in a cultural and ethnic context. Even this context is difficult to define, because a Jew can be Italian, thus ethnically Italian, yet still identify as Jewish (through Religion). Even if that individual was not a practicing Jew, the context would remain. As an example, a Japanese person cannot be considered under any other ethnic grouping even when associating with various religions. The difficulty in thus describing Judaism is the confusion aroused between the religious, ethnic, cultural, and social ties. Therefore, it's difficult to remove the criticism of Israel, or Judaism, from racism. One can find fault with Christianity and France, without necessitating racism towards French people. However, finding fault with Judaism and Israel, does equate to racism in today's society. It's rather unfortunate, because nobody should be above accountability and reproach. Moreover, It has become such a powerful force in American Politics because the criticism of Israel's faults has become sacrilegious . In fact, there's more open and free debate and dialogue in Israel on the treatment of the Palestinians, then there is in the United States Congress.

In short summary then, my criticism of Israel, and even Judaism, does not equate to racism, because I am not directing it towards a specific people, but a specific system. Criticism can apply to a religious system, a political system, even a social system, without necessarily equating it to an individual. There are millions of Jews that are outside of the religious and Zionistic spectrum who do not keep Israel or Judaism above reproach. There is a natural tendency to feel defensive about one's own people and culture. Often times, I find that the criticism that I'm willing to place on other cultures, doesn't seem to apply as strongly to mine, and must force myself to think objectively and clearly. State corruption for example, provides a window into the inefficiency of some countries to function for their people's benefit. Armenia, is one of these countries that has a significant amount of corruption, and the same standards that I'm willing to apply to African countries should also as strongly apply to Armenia. There are times I find myself laxing in applying these standards, but must objectively look at the situation and leave defensive tendencies behind. Certain defensive tendencies are beneficial when used as an organizing force for good, however, any culture that feels morally, physical, and socially superior to another is not in itself superior. There is not one entity (whether a person, a state, a religion, a rule of law, etc.) that cannot benefit from some form of improvement and constructive criticism. When one looks at global politics today, the influence that Superiority has over others, destabilizes the world. Under the guidance of the Bush Administration, the egotistic belief over moral, religious, and cultural superiority cannot be underestimated. Just as Arab Nationalism believes in its own moral superiority, Zionism shares this common thread. In fact, having defined Zionism under the pretext of Nationalism, the belief in intrinsic superiority with other's extrinsic inferiority is perpetuated. Thus, the issue is not with Zionism, or Judaism, but with Nationalism, and Religion. These are the underlying themes and those in power are those that control the sense of religion and nationalism. It is up to the common people, those outside of the elite to thirst for knowledge and the freedom from mental enslavement.

Conspiracy of September 11 2001

Evidence has recently surfaced that shakes the foundation of American, and subsequently global society to the core. The unfortunate implications of this are mind numbing and absolutely tragic.

Through the study of history, we view certain societies such as the Soviet Union, that was ruled by autocrats, and whose population had been completely uninformed about important events, as ignorant and gullible. The Soviet Space program had numerous disasters, leading to the loss of dozens of lives, yet, the general Soviet populace, and the rest of the world for that matter were oblivious. Another example would be the German invasion of Poland during World War II. The German Populace had been told that the Soviets had pushed through into Poland, planning to invade Germany, thus thinking that the invasion of Poland by the Nazi regime was a move for defense.

Thanks in large part to the shock that Americans and the world experienced after September 11th, the Bush Regime (along with the probably likelihood of either the CIA, FBI, or more likely both) perpetuated a state of fear, and through the fog of anxiety, managed to reduce our civil liberties to tatters. The Constitution itself was circumvented and reinterpreted leading to the American Public's bond with that of the Soviet and Nazi regime's populace.

The Evidence, that has yet to be criticized of methodology, is the metallurgical analysis of the steel from the World Trade Center. A professor from the conservative University of Brigham Young named Steven Jones has released a paper titled "Why indeed did the World Trade Center Collapse". In it, he sites dozens of experiments with Aluminothermic reactions, with the conclusion that the collapse of the World Trade Center was a result of a controlled demolition from a powerful explosive reaction of Aluminum powder and A type of rust known as (Ferrous Ferric Iron Oxide). When Aluminum powder and a specific type of Rust combine, an explosive called Thermite is formed. Thermite is an amazing material. If the powder and rust grains are coarse, then the reaction is slow, when the materials are extremely fine, then the reaction is very powerful and explosive. A small amount of Thermite goes a very long way in destructive capabilities. Not only were there significant traces of Thermite found at the World Trade Center site, but some residue present pointed to a specific type of Thermite called Thermate. Thermate is a military grade explosive, that's composed roughly of 69% Thermite, 28% Barium Nitrate (increases the explosive power of the Thermite Reaction) and about 3% sulfur (increases the heat of the reaction) with some small traces of Binder to hold it all together. It's frequently used in incendiary grenades, and due to the ubiquitous amount of the needed chemicals, it's cheap to produce. Some of the residue mentioned includes sulfur as well as other compounds that cannot account for any other processes besides a powerful Aluminothermic reaction.

A quick summary of the events on September 11th can reveal a great deal about the speed of the reaction and the possible amount of Thermite used. A good place to start would be to visit
http://www9.nationalgeographic.com/channel/inside911/timeline.html and find a comprehensive timeline of the WTC events.
Looking at the events, it's absolutely known that the first plane (American Airlines Flight 77) crashed into the North Tower at 8:46 AM, followed by the Second Plane (United Airlines Flight 175) hitting the South Tower at 9:03 AM.
The first tower to collapse was the South Tower at 9:59 AM, followed by the North at 10:28 AM. This information results in the fact that it took Approximately 1 hour and 45 minutes for the North Tower to collapse, and about 1 hour for the South. The time in between that's been attributed to the steel burning and buckling under the intense heat would have actually been caused by the Thermite reaction in the structural steel supports in the center of the buildings. The remnants had been smoking and smoldering for weeks after the collapse, and many workers at the site document still molten pools of steel at the center.
Further resources include :

http://www.journalof911studies.com/JonesAnswersQuestionsWorldTradeCenter.pdf
http://www.rinf.com/conspiracies/9-11/Steven-E-Jones-WTC-Lecture.php

Many of the events surrounding September 11 2001 can be argued, but when objective analysis leads to results that stray from the "official report", then one must wonder just how much of the truth the public knows. Speculation is naturally rampant, when the facts point one way, the official line points another, and the outcome is the loss of freedom. Without skepticism and speculation, we will become a closed society. The government has become so opaque, that it's vast functions have become a mystery. The transparent government of a true democracy cannot falter, because the populace will be aware of its shortfalls. A closed and opaque government, on the other hand, owes its allegiance to nothing but greed, corruption, and the perpetuation of such ills.

Break the shackles of restraint, and appreciate freedom for all it's worth. The freedom of thought should never become a crime. Think freely, be skeptical, and realize that what happened in the past, will happen again. Embrace knowledge and attempt to unravel the truth. These are the only methods of defeating a monsterous and vile entity known as Tyranny.

The Day that changed the world: Sept-11-01

Looking through the annals of history, it's impossible not to notice major dates that changed the world. The Day the Huns sacked Rome (summing up the centuries of decay that brought an end to the empire), the Day Christopher Columbus "discovered America (found a new hemisphere to exploit)", the Day Neil Armstrong first set foot on the Moon. There are countless such moments that define an era. Some of these moments signal an end, others signal a beginning; but in general, the common thread between these eras is global change. Changes of significance, when looked upon with hindsight and the eyes of history, can often be summed up in an apex moment; a moment of utter climax that subsequently ushers in a difference of perspective. Encapsulating vast moments of causality to the process of history in such climactic increments is a mode of convenience. It allows us to simplify and define what could be a complex and intricate patchwork of various circumstances leading to the ultimate moment of definition.

September 11, 2001 will in high probability, become a defining moment in History. Not just in the history of the United States, but in the history of the World. It was a moment that signified a change in perspective for most governments of the world. Before 9-11, an enemy was often defined by a particular nation, a state that was either considered a threat, or a required asset. The Cold War was the quintessential definition of State sponsored Warfare. The two superpowers of the world, through threats, intimidation, peripheral warfare, and mutual assured destruction, tried to influence the rest of the world to sway towards their ideals. The effects of this polarization still linger today in places such as North Korea. After 9-11 however, the Western World started viewing warfare in a different light. It wasn't one nation against another, but one ideology fighting the influence of the other. Further, the nature of warfare itself changed, by the combatants' adaptation of blending instead of forming well defined armies. Warfare in the 21st century is becoming defined by "terrorism" instead of globalism. In the previous century, victors were often a product of a large military capacity. Recently however, thanks in large part to Vietnam, the Soviet Afghan Wars, the strength of a force suddenly was overshadowed by the ingenuity and resourcefulness of those who had nothing left to lose. The main weapon of those forces was not artillery, but ideology. It was and still is a binding force of strength against what is deemed an occupying oppressive regime. Hundreds of years of European Style Imperialism is suddenly coming to a close. The Middle East is tearing itself apart to break free of the European imposed boundries based squarely on the surviving remnants of Imperialism and Colonialization.

September 11th didn't have to be known as the moment in history when a superpower so grossly overreacts to a perceived threat, that civil liberties, rational thought, and the presence of a thoughtful opposition are completely lost. A lot could have changed had the Administration properly reacted to the situation. First, a new pledge to lead the world in Environmental issues and perpetuating the growing trend towards renewable resources. The technology and implementation of such things as biodiesel (Brazil is leading that forefront), solar power (Australia), and wind energy (Denmark), could have gone a long way. Imposing a carbon tax on emissions would have resulted in expeditious advancements in eco-science.

Apart from the Environment, 9-11 could have been the moment when the world not only came together, but through proper leadership, stayed a course of mutual trust and assurance. Who now remembers Iran's official condolences, or the unification of the Arab Nations towards capturing those responsible? Thanks to the United State's Unilateral engagement to fossil fuels and Israel, we, the American people are now defined as Pariahs. It's unfortunate that a whole nation can so quickly forget the ease with which liberties can be lost, and forge a relentless path towards World War III (or World War IV in some circles, due to the Cold War being considered WWIII).

Change in Politics -- Status Quo Remains

Regardless of the shift in the political climate within the United States, the American Position in the world is still as troubled as it can possibly be. The Damage that the Current Administration, along with Congress has already done to this point, cannot be untangled in a few years, much less a decade. The unfortunate thing is that the damage has been ongoing for over 50 years now, because the United States, against its own constitution, does not owe its allegiance to Americans. America, whether it's Republican or Democrat, rich or poor, subconsciously supports the Israeli regime. It's not some grand conspiracy on the part of Jews, or some imaginative source, but rooted in Christianity and the Bible.

Most people who are raised in a Christian environment, whether it be direct (as in Evangelicals), or indirect (as in Secular Europe), own a wealth of repository knowledge to the Bible. One cannot escape from the Bible, merely because they are non-practicing. The stories of the Bible interject with popular culture throughout all Christian societies. Noah's ark for example, even in highly secular circles, is well known. The story of Adam and Eve, in fact, is so well known that even evolutionary scientists must adopt the names to apply them to the genetic ancestors of modern human beings. Mitochondrial Eve, or the Y-Chromosome Adam, exist because the Bible has interjected and rooted itself so deeply in culture, that even science, as secular and rational as it can be, cannot escape from using names and stories to make principles easier to understand. Why not use Ancestral Mitochondrial Female, or Ancestral Y-Chromosome Adam instead? The truth is that fewer people would show interest because those scientifically descriptive names would not evoke the emotional responses that Adam and Eve can.

The Bible is in fact, the mythological legends, histories, and stories of people in the Middle East. The Jews of the Bible owe a lot of their stories to Mesopotamian Legends. Noah's Ark, although popularly attributed to the Bible, actually existed in many different stories recounted from Ancient Sumerian Legend. Those stories were borrowed, compiled, retold, and evolved through numerous conceptualizations until they were recast as the Bible we know today. The Hebrews, Israelites, and general Jews that make up the Bible by proportion are the root basis of Modern day Christianity (which in fact existed in Egypt predating Judaism...but that's another blog). Therefore, in most people who come from a Christian culture (whether secular or not), there's a small soft spot for Judaism. By criticizing the State of Israel today, most Christians feel that they're doing a disservice to their own religion. What people must realize however, is that the Jews of the Bible are generally not the flesh and blood Jews of Today. Judaism is ultimately a religion, not an ethnic group. Like all religions, it's a philosophy, a form of belief, an "-ism" if you will. One could be ethnically Chinese, African, South American, Indian, or any ethnic group, but as long as they follow the rules and customs, they could become Christian, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, or any of the religions. Just as there are blonde and blue eyed Muslims in Albania, along with fair haired Muslim Converts in the UK, there are also Asian and African Jews, such as in Singapore and Ethiopia respectively.

The Jews of today, who are claiming Israel as their own are not ethnically related to the Jews of the Bible. The dirty little Secret is that the Palestinians and Israeli Arabs are more closely related to the Jews of the Bible then the Eastern and Southern European Jews. The Eastern European Jews known as Ashkenazi have brought with them ideologies and values that are reflected in European culture (such as socialism, fascism, communism), and have used those tactics to brutally control and oppress the Palestinians. These people are Ethnically European, having very little genetic relations with ancient Canaanites (the ethnic group that once occupied what's called Israel, Palestine, and Southern Lebanon of today). Yet, they claim the land as theirs, and with a brutal military force, backed by the military and financial might of the United States, enforce their own brand and rule of law in the region.

Now, these militant Israeli's, who would rather prefer other's to do their dirty work for them (such as the United States did with Saddam Hussein's regime), continue goading Iran into war. They Instigate Iran into reacting and then Instigate the United States into Responding, thus destabilizing the region and leaving discontent in their wake. The proof of this is in a recent news article http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061110/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_iran_nuclear

Naturally, if Israel, as a leading politician claims, will attack Iran for "preventative measures", then the United States will have to support this decision. More soldiers will have to die to feed the Israeli-American War Machine, and fascism will survive into the next decade. The constant threats, instigations, acquisition of land and "pre-emptive warfare" philosophies help perpetuate this Fascist Doctrine. The American Government will continue being subservient to Israel, regardless of a Republican or Democrat controlled agenda, because open criticism relates to political death. In the "land of the free, and home of the brave" any person who attempts to openly criticize Israel over it's policy against Palestinians, it's reaction against Lebanon, the continued threats on Iran, will be severely punished. Money is the driving force of politicians, and those who control money, mainly those Sympathetic to the Israeli cause, are those that control policies and politics. The General Public on the other hand is lead to believe that criticizing Israel is un-Christian and should not even be thought. It has reached a point where even thinking about the power that these groups with Israeli Sympathies have should be illegal.

The problems that arise throughout the world aren't just related to the Bible alone. Even the Koran has influence over how cultures think of the Middle East. The stories and legends in the Koran are based on the Arabic culture of Mohammed's time. At the time, Christianity, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, and many other wide-spread beliefs were vying for control. It just happened that Muhammad created something that lead to what we now know as Islam. Just as American's generally don't criticize Israel, many Muslim Asian countries conversely don't criticize Saudi Arabia. Indonesia for example, will always hold a soft spot for Saudi Arabia, because that's where Mecca and Medina are (the core of Islamic Culture).

Ultimately, with all these measures of control over how one must react, there is an escape route. There is always a way out of such strict and confining thought, and that is Reason.
Reason is the life raft in the middle of the ocean; it will provide a mode of survival and navigation through charted and uncharted areas of thought and philosophy.
Reason will develop naturally, once the ideals that we hold are not a product of being force fed, but a product of our own accord. How different would the world be if there were no clergymen? If every single person chose to read the Bible (or other religious texts) themselves, instead of having to go and listen to someone with "spiritual authority" tell them what they should gather. A simple exercise to illustrate this point is to read a transcript from a news analysis show, and then actually watch the show. Upon reading the transcript, one projects their own thoughts and images, their own ideas, and ultimately, deduces one's own analysis because those words being read are being read based on personal experience, based on everything else that's been read. However, when one listens to the program itself, they are unconsciously forced to feel what the analyst feels. We are ultimately empathetic creatures, and the nuances and subtleties of someone talking effects our thinking. The inflection in a person's voice, and where they emphasize their points will differ if one reads a transcript. Even if the program holds views completely opposite, watching it is very different from reading it, and finding holes in the reasoning. It becomes easier to look at things objectively, and avoid being influenced by the emotional inflection of someone's voice.