On Justice

Disclaimer:  I am not a student of the law, nor do I have much interest in studying law as it is applied in this country.  Most of my knowledge of the legal system is due to reading John Grisham and watching bad courtroom movies, as well as taking a perverse delight in reading about miscarriages of justice so please forgive any fallacies I may commit here.  This article is intended to be of philosophical and social interest, not legal.

As a collection of social beings, humans have adopted countless mechanisms to guide and facilitate our daily interactions.  The Law of the Land, or the idea of a rigid justice system, draws its power from the consent of the governed, at least in this country, at least theoretically.  As a (supposed) Democracy, the majority of the citizens decide which behaviors they deem unacceptable, and assign punishments based on (presumably) the severity of the violation.  These behaviors may be as simple and straightforward as not permitting homicide (except sometimes, by some people, in some places, under some circumstances) or much more complex such as tax policy.

Now if we accept all of this, that the law exists as an expression of the desires of the majority, then it seems to me that the majority must decide if, when deciding a verdict for an accused person, it would prefer to err on the side of reasonable doubt, or err on the side of punishing an innocent.  This revelation was very striking to me, that when one removes all pretenses of absolute morality, or divinely mandated behavior, we're left with a simple question: what is the social value of carrying out punishment on one guilty person compared with the value of not punishing one innocent person?  As a society, would the majority prefer to always convict the accused, and cause undue suffering on many innocent people, or would it be preferable to turn many criminals back out on the streets in order to assure that no person is ever wrongfully punished.  Furthermore, should the nature of the punishment be decided based on the best interests of the criminal, the victim, or the majority?  This is about to get thorny, but I don't mind a little intellectual heavy lifting.  So here we go, one point at a time.

1.  Reasonable Doubt
It seems to me that society has tried to strike a balance between letting the guilty go free and convicting the innocent.  The accused is presumed innocent, the burden of proof is on the prosecutor, and the judge/jury/arbiter is instructed that no conviction be made unless there is no reasonable doubt (ambiguous criterion) as to the guilt of the accused.  These biases in favor of the defendant exist in order to prevent the court from convicting an innocent, as I suppose it is presumed that if someone actually is guilty then evidence exists to be found which is sufficient to overcome these biases.  Interestingly, the judgement of the court is considered indisputably correct*, unless it is disputed (appealed) and a higher court accepts the case for retrial.  If this higher court overturns the verdict, then it is accepted that the first court was mistaken (even though that isn't supposed to happen), but if the verdict was upheld then the first court was correct, unless the first court was incorrect in terms of its proceedings or something, but still managed to get the "correct" verdict through luck I guess.  So, we have our ruling from the appeals court, be it different or the same as the initial ruling.  This new ruling is indisputably correct*, unless, you got it, it is disputed and accepted for retrial by a higher court.
*Note: I use the term indisputably correct, because once the conviction/acquittal is pronounced the accused immediately becomes either the guilty or the innocent, respectively.  In other words, if we are carrying out capital punishment on persons without even pretending that their guilt is established as fact, then we have far more serious deficiencies as a society.

2.  To Err on the Side of Conviction
This position may well seem favorable to victims, the families of victims, or people who have never been wrongfully accused.  Some of the arguments in favor of this position include: the dissuasion of future crime based on a smaller probability of "getting away with it"; that the police, detectives, investigators, prosecutors are generally competent and generally impartial (not impartial to catching the bad guy, just impartial in selecting the most likely perpetrator from a list of suspects) and therefore not prone to putting innocents on trial; and that a criminal on the street will continue to victimize others.

3.  To Err on the Side of Innocence
To be publicly pronounced guilty of a crime and then to carry out the sentence for that crime when one is innocent of the crime is one of the great tragedies of our legal system.  The idea is so powerful that it has appeared in countless books and movies as a main plot device.  Anyone who has suffered this fate would likely say that it is a worse outcome of justice than to have a guilty person released on the streets.  This is logically correct, as by definition the perpetrator is still on the streets when an innocent is incarcerated for their crime.  Convicting an innocent does no good to anybody (except for perhaps providing false comfort and peace of mind to the victim/victim's family) and destroys lives in addition to the consequences of the crime itself.  Obviously, this outcome should be avoided as much as possible.

4.  The Nature of the Punishment
Should convicted criminals be treated in a way that is unpleasant to them, in order to inflict on them the suffering that they have caused others?  Surely this may deter some crime, but not all and probably not most.  Should the criminal be treated with efforts at rehabilitation, that they may be "cured" and then forgiven, returned as productive members of society? Should the criminal be disposed of in whatever way brings the most comfort to the victim(s) of the crime?  Should the criminal be removed from society simply for the benefit of society, and with no consideration given them?  This last option seems most appealing, as the others are vicious, naive, and childish, respectively.  Perhaps a blending of the practicality of the last option and the hopefulness of the second option would be best.  To remove troublesome members of society, to fix the ones that can be fixed, and to dispose of the others in whichever way is most cost-effective and palatable for the majority.  This could be anything from quick, cheap, painless executions to for-profit forced labor prisons.  I would like to point out that our current system has become so convoluted that, while trying to strike the best balance between points 2 and 3, criminals are not rehabilitated, are often hardened, resentful, and unemployable when finally released (surely the JUSTICE SYSTEM cannot be responsible for high rates of recidivism!), and that even when the worst criminals are executed (remember my note about indisputably correct verdicts) this takes place decades after the crime and likely after costing society millions of dollars.

5.  Finally, a Thought on Entering Pleas
I take the majority's approval of capital punishment to mean that they have deemed the justice system infallible, if not in fact then at least in terms of their acceptance of it's rulings.  If a person is convicted of a crime, and the majority stands by the court's ability to differentiate guilt from innocence, then I would like to propose additional sentencing penalties for individuals who plea "Not Guilty" and are found guilty.  For if they maintain their innocence, and the court maintains their guilt, and the majority sides with the court, then clearly the majority is of the opinion that the defendant is lying.  If anyone takes issue with additional punishment for a convict pleading "Not Guilty" then they must, by definition, have no faith in the court.

MLP feat. TBL

I was watching My Little Pony yesterday with my daughter and wife, and as some of the characters entered a bowling alley I noticed a purple-clad pony with a goatee and a hairnet, so I said, "It's The Jesus!"  referring, of course, to John Turturro's character in The Big Lebowski.  A few seconds later, a trio of background ponies were revealed.  They were drawn in the image of The Dude, Walter Sobcheck, and Donnie (Jeff Bridges, John Goodman, and Steve Buscemi from The Big Lebowski).  I thought this was a delightful little allusion from the creators of a through-and-through children's program.  It's discoveries like these that keep me from giving up hope for humanity.

Debt and Ethics, or Stealing from the Unborn

This is a continuation from my previous post.
Before I begin, I wish to make clear that the value judgements that I am making here are based on a set of moral principles which, if not universal, are at least reasonable enough to be accepted by the majority of Americans.  A comprehensive description of this moral code would be an exhausting and boring undertaking, so in the interest of conserving time and energy I will outline a model which will hopefully suffice.  Think of the 10 commandments of the Bible, only instead of these laws being issued by a divine being, they are a set of guidelines agreed upon by society to serve the best interests of society as a whole.  We shall not kill one another, we shall not steal from one another, we shall not intentionally deceive one another, etc.

So what is American government debt?  It is the balance of money borrowed in order to satisfy immediate needs with the promise of future repayment plus interest.  There are many justifiable reasons for issuing debt, such as providing disaster relief, stimulating an economy in recession, investing in infrastructures which will foster a more productive future, and maybe, just maybe funding necessary and just military campaigns.  Each of these is a topic in and of itself, and there are many more conceivable reasons to issue debt.  But for every justifiable reason, we could think of ten unjustifiable reasons.  The bottom line is this: in order to be ethically justifiable, every debt-financed expenditure must either carry an expectation that it will lead to greater revenues in the future, or if not, then it must be made with the understanding that it will be payed for with other revenues, either by cutting spending elsewhere or by raising taxes.

So here is my problem with inheriting $15 Trillion or so in government debt.  Our country is supposedly a representative democracy, meaning that even though a select few make budgetary decisions, they do so with the blessing of the majority of voters.  If your representative (Congressperson, Senator, President) makes budgetary decisions that you disapprove of, then you have a duty to remove him or her from office and replace him or her with someone who will rectify the situation.  The problem is that most voting Americans have not cared or paid attention to what their elected leaders are doing.  This apathy or ignorance leaves the voters responsible.  With power comes responsibility, right?  Well in a democracy, every voter has equal shares of political power and responsibility, like it or not.  We don't get to reap the benefits of living in a free country without shouldering the burden of responsibility.  If you prefer no power/no responsibility then I wish you good luck in relocating to a feudal society where you have no say in your own fate.

Now I don't wish to patronize here, but I worry that it may be necessary to clarify for some the difference between debt and deficit.  A debt is a quantity of money owed, a deficit is the margin between income and expenditure.  So if you had a yearly income of $100 for ten years, and you spent $110 during each of those ten years, then each year you ran a deficit of $10 and at the end you accrued a debt of $100.  So we can think of the debt as the sum of all past deficits.  A debt in and of itself is not an evil thing, for as long as the interest is paid, it doesn't grow.  Maintaining a deficit, however, causes your debt to grow very quickly.  Even worse is the practice of growing deficits.  The U.S. government is in the habit of growing deficits, causing the total debt to grow very quickly.  Using the above example, with an annual income of $100, a growing deficit would look like this:

Year 1: Income $100  Expenditure $110  Debt $10
Year 2: Income $100  Expenditure $120  Debt $30
Year 3: Income $100  Expenditure $130  Debt $60
Year 4: Income $100  Expenditure $140  Debt $100
Note:  In a more realistic model we would expect some growth in income due to growth in GDP, and we would expect some devaluation of the debt due to inflation (neat trick, that), but we would also be paying interest on the debt each year, so for this simple illustration I will ignore these factors.

By this model of increasing deficits, we have accumulated in four years the same debt that we accumulated in ten years with a constant deficit.  To make matters worse, if we decided to correct our behavior and stabilize our debt at $100 for years five onward, we would have to eliminate nearly 30% of our expenditure.  This would not only be brutal, but would also likely damage our economy (read: higher unemployment, lower exports, lower wages).  All this serves to illustrate why increasing deficits should be avoided like the plague.

Okay, back to reality.  Our politicians live their lives one term at a time, be that two years, four years, or six years.  If they feel the need to increase spending or decrease taxes in order to get reelected today, THEY WILL DO IT, CONSEQUENCES BE DAMNED.  This is why the people have to take responsibility for the budget.  Most of us are able to live within our means, but we don't expect our government to do the same.  If a politician says, "I will lower taxes," or, "I will increase spending on [insert favorite social entitlement here]," the people just eat it up.  Any politician who says, "I will increase taxes in order to reduce the deficit," would be burned in effigy and denounced as a blasphemer, even though that is exactly what most of us have to do in our daily lives.

So if you can agree that voters in a democracy carry the responsibility of controlling how much money the government spends and receives, then I have only one more thing to accomplish: to demonstrate that the behavior of past decades is unethical.

I will now pick on the Bush administration, but I assure you this is only because I am young and was not aware of the specific behavior of previous presidents.  I omit the Obama administration because many economists would consider the deficit spending of 2008 onward to be justifiable in order to keep our economy from completely disintegrating.  President George W. Bush presided during a time of (mostly) economic strength and prosperity.  He proudly attached his name to a series of sweeping tax cuts that drastically reduced government revenues in order to put cash in the hands of the American people.  By increasing deficit spending (I am told that President Clinton presided over a budget with a surplus) President Bush increased the size of the debt in order to give voters a pile of money.  This is, in my opinion, morally equivalent to taking out a personal loan guaranteed by unborn generations to come, obviously without their consent.  Therefore, the voters who are responsible for the budget paid themselves CASH in the form of tax refunds, knowing full well that they would never have to repay it.  But this isn't free money.  The debt will fall on the children of that generation, or their children, or so on down the line.  But if you think that the folks holding the Treasury Bonds will forgive this debt when it comes due, you are deceived.

And so as I come of age, I assume stewardship over a debt that was accumulated by previous generations paying themselves via promises that one day I would repay the lenders.  I am not okay with this.  It would be completely impractical and foolish for my generation to default on this $15 Trillion debt, but I do claim this: it would be just.  The investors who have bought government debt under these circumstances knew the score when they bought the bonds, and so they share at least a small portion of the blame for this injustice, and so should not expect to be preserved from financial losses if my generation refused to repay them.  But I expect it won't really matter in the end, because my generation is as greedy as any, and I am certain we will borrow money from our unborn descendants so that we aren't left holding the bag.

Economic Astronomy 101

Let's talk about my inheritance.  As a twenty-something year old American, I have only recently become fully vested with my rights as a citizen.  I have been financially self sufficient for about seven years and have accumulated only a single piece of debt: one of my cars is due to be paid off in just over a year.  Pretty neat, huh?  Well I guess I share some liability for the United States' total governmental debt.  True, I have only voted a few times, and I have been vocal about the danger of deficit spending and the need to increase revenues.  True, the current government debt was accumulated against my will and mostly before I was a citizen, but I'll be honest:  I have benefitted from the building of infrastructure, etc., etc., so I can pony up a bit.  What's that?  The debt wasn't accumulated building infrastructure?  You say that it was accumulated to fund tax breaks, expand Medicare, and finance unjust, unpopular wars?  You say that our national infrastructure is neglected, unmaintained, and in drastic need of repair?  Huh.  Well, maybe I shouldn't really be held responsible for other people's profligacy, especially if it occurred before I was conceived.

Alright, sarcasm aside, I have a bone to pick with you if you are 35 or older.  I was listening to this absolutely fantastic little BBC podcast called More or Less, here, and in an episode from 5 August, 2011, I learned a staggeringly worrisome fact.  This fact was related to the size of the U.S. government debt (at the time) which was projected at $14.3 Trillion.  That's $14,300,000,000,000 or, if you fancy scientific notation, $1.43 * 10^13.  According to the podcast, if you were to make a stack of $100 bills worth $14.3 Trillion, the stack would reach far into space.  How far? Well, given a thickness of 0.004" for each $100 bill, the stack would be about 9030 MILES high.  That is significantly greater than the average diameter of the Earth.  I decided to have some fun with the figure and use a scale that is more relevant to a poor SOB like myself: the $1 bill.  Assuming an identical thickness of 0.004" for each bill, we have simply to multiply the height by a factor of 100.  Do you think that it reaches to the moon?  The moon is, on average, 238,835 miles from the Earth.  So the answer is YES!  Almost four times!  So you could make three and three-quarters stacks of $1 bills tall enough to scrape regolith off the surface of the moon, and that  pile of money is equal to our government's outstanding debt obligations, at least as of last August.  Hopefully we haven't reached four stacks yet.  Now, if I have my math correct, converting to a stack of pennies (each 0.061" thick) gives us a stack 1,376,736,109.84 miles tall.  Anybody know what an Astronomical Unit is in miles?  The answer is 92,955,807.273 miles.  So yes, our debt in pennies stacked vertically would be more than tall enough to touch the sun. 

Next time, I will discuss the moral implications of this literally astronomical amount of debt.

Timothy Geithner, shut up you whiny bitch

I heard a short snippet of Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner the other day on NPR.  He was whining about how the Chinese government-run corporations have a competitive advantage over private corporations in places like the United States.  I was unable to find the exact quote on NPR's website (I looked for about 90 seconds) but this story covers the gist of it.

Timothy Geithner, the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States who had difficulty filing his income taxes over several years, seems to me the perfect poster child for this country's contradictions between economic policy and stated economic beliefs.  Every conservative/Republican (they have become synonymous) loves to talk about the virtues of the "free market" and the benefits of deregulation and lower taxes.  First of all, the U.S. has anything but a free market, but that is a post for another time.  My point today is that while these folks go around trumpeting the advantages in efficiency of free market capitalism (think Mitt Romney and that buffoon Newt Gingrich) their friends are complaining about China's unfair advantages in currency control and state-owned, taxpayer supported corporations.  I will forgo the opportunity here to take a shot at our recent taxpayer funded bailouts of AIG and GM.

While I am far from an expert in Chinese economic policy, or economics in general, my understanding is that China keeps it's currency undervalued intentionally because this allows them to sell a greater number of goods internationally at artificially lower prices.  Their reason for doing this is to keep unemployment low and keep lots of manufacturing jobs at home, and those workers paying taxes.  So this system can essentially be described as an elegant form of unemployment control.  In our "free market" the taxpayers write checks to the unemployed for doing nothing, in China the taxpayers write checks to the government in order to keep unemployment low.  If I have misunderstood or missed something here, please point it out.

Anyway, regardless of whether or not I correctly understand currency control incentives, the big contradiction here is that the free market capitalist champion is blubbering because a different economic system is out-competing the capitalist corporations in the U.S.  All I'm saying is that if their system is such a threat to us, maybe there would be some value in discussing its pros and cons rather than treating it like some evil satanic religion.

Strawberry Jam

I made the tastiest strawberry jam yesterday.  This was only my second jam ever, and the first to deviate from a strict recipe.  My first jam was a blueberry-lime that, while good, was too sweet and not very outstanding.  It seemed like any jam off a grocery store shelf.  So I wanted a jam that wasn't so sugary and that was clearly a different beast than the store-bought stuff.  So I bought some strawberries as they were "in season" (meaning that somewhere on planet Earth a crop was harvested and then quickly transported to Arizona) and proceeded to review my home canning guide.  I looked online at a couple canning forums and found that most people who are unhappy with conventional jam recipes are looking to remove pectin from the process, as using pectin is not "traditional enough" for them.  The general advice given them was to use more sugar, and/or cook longer.

It was explained that most jam recipes are about 60% sugar as this allows it to gel and supposedly helps to preserve it for longer.  Well, since my aim was to reduce the sugar in order to actually taste the fruit (and make it healthier) I decided on a simple solution.  I would cut back the total sugar by about 1/3 and add about 15% more pectin than called for.  As a last resort I would be able to cook it as long as necessary in order to get the desired gel.  This was important as I planned to replace 1 cup of sugar with 2/3 cups of sweet agave nectar (this is the prescribed ratio of substitution) which would further impede the jam's gelling as it is a liquid.  I also elected to use brown sugar in place of some of the granulated sugar because it is so much more delicious.  To address the preservation issue, I decided that there was not much I could do, but it couldn't hurt to add a small amount of lemon juice in order to increase the acidity (lower the pH) and make it slightly less hospitable to molds, bacteria, etc.

So finally, I prepared and mashed the strawberries, added the agave nectar, brown sugar, granulated sugar, pectin, lemon juice, and in a last-minute flash of inspiration, a bit of pure vanilla extract.  I cooked the jam for a while but was concerned as it still seemed too liquid.  This is a difficult judgement for a dilettante like myself, as the molten jam is much more fluid than the cool jam will be.  I continued to cook it until I felt like it was as close as I dared to get it to gelling without burning it.

After the jam was canned and cooled I was relieved to find that it was stable (not runny) in the jars.  So, I popped one open and took a sample.  What I found was a jam that, likely due to the prolonged cooking, had an indescribable consistency.  It is so soft that I want to compare it to applesauce, although I can invert an open jar without losing any jam on the floor, and I can spread it on bread without the bread absorbing any liquid.  It's like a strawberry-cloud dream.  And the flavor!  With the reduced sugar, the strawberry flavors really shine through, with a bit of molasses taste from the brown sugar and the faintest hint of vanilla.  This barrage of flavor made the agave nectar undetectable to a pedestrian palate like mine, but I don't dare remove it from the recipe in case it is somewhat responsible for the amazing consistency.

So here is the recipe in as much detail as I can give.  I apologize, but I am notorious for eyeballing measurements of non-critical experimental ingredients.

Ingredients:
3 lbs. fresh strawberries (about 5-6 cups once pulverized)
2/3 cups Agave Nectar
1 1/2 cups brown sugar
1/2 cups granulated sugar
6 tbsp classic pectin
approx. 2 oz lemon juice
a few tsp (?) pure vanilla extract

standard canning equipment

Yields 6 cups

Procedure:
Wash, decap, and quarter strawberries.  Mash one layer at a time, until all chunks are damaged and immersed in fluid.  In large pot add all ingredients, bring to a boil stirring constantly.  Continue to low boil to desired consistency, approximately 20-30 min.  Follow standard boiling water canning procedures.

Feel free to experiment with every aspect of this recipe and leave me any advice, feedback, etc. as I am just a novice myself!

On Population

Over the past decade Americans have become increasingly interested in reducing the responsibility they feel for the negative impact that their existence has on the chemical and biological makeup of our planet.  Many people make daily decisions to reduce their "footprint" so long as they don't have to drastically alter their routines, and some are even willing to pay more money or suffer more inconvenience in order to be friendly to the planet.  Most of these same people would identify themselves as being in agreement with Charles Darwin and his ideas about natural selection and survival of the fittest.  According to these theories, as humans we should ultimately be concerned with ensuring the continued existence of our species, and one aspect of that concern should be to avoid poisoning our habitat or causing a disruption in the food chain.  I want to emphasize that our interests in being green are and should be selfish.  The Earth herself doesn't care which chemicals are in the atmosphere, or even if life exists on her surface and in her oceans.  And as for the other species, if they cannot adapt to the constantly changing ecosystems, then it is natural and proper that they should go extinct.  For example, if we fish cod into extinction then they are merely joining a very long list of species on this planet that have failed the test of survival.  Now we may wish to preserve the cod species because they are critical, useful, or merely delicious.  However I wish to emphasize that our protection of them, or the coral reefs, or panda bears, is ultimately a self-serving goal.

It is easily conceivable that we could inadvertently alter our planet drastically enough that we could make it uninhabitable for our progeny.  It is my opinion that we as a species should be aware of this and take certain precautions in order to forestall our extinction, but our extinction is almost certainly inevitable.  We could be annihilated next year by a rogue asteroid, or we could survive until our sun goes red giant and engulfs our little blue planet, or we could even survive that event only to perish when the last star in the Milky Way fizzles out.

So, what is a more realistic goal than "the infinite continuation of the human species"?  How about we try to reduce human suffering due to shortages of resources?  I will die one day, maybe soon, but I would prefer if it was not due to starvation, famine, disease, or exposure.

Have I piqued your interest?  I have a single offspring, and people (usually strangers) often ask when my wife and I will have more.  Well, sometimes when two adults really love one another... a baby comes.  But as far as planning goes, I feel that it is irresponsible to increase the human population of the Earth, and there are plenty of unwanted children out there who would benefit from adoption.  I find it fascinating that this is not a point of view that I am comfortable sharing with strangers, probably because it is an indictment of most families.

Our planet has a carrying capacity, and that capacity certainly rises with technological innovations, but at some point even if food and fuel and water do not limit our population, then physical space will.  Even well fed humans will not live shoulder to shoulder with other humans, and even if we would, at some point we would have to become a planet sized pile of living bodies to keep growing.  In other words, our population is limited.  In today's geopolitical realities, a baby born in the "west" (read: wealthy country) will generally have ample access to food, fuel, water, and space, but these resources are limited, so others must be deprived in order to supply the wealthy.  Of course this sort of zero-sum game is unsustainable (the deprived will resort to violence to keep their resources) but in the meantime there will be unnecessary suffering.

I say it is unnecessary because if every human adult made the choice to be responsible for the global population, there would be no shortage of resources.  I will not deprive another human of resources because I "want more kids".  The right to procreate is a basic human right only insofar as it does not interfere with the basic human rights of others.  Instead of trying to emulate some stereotype about the "perfect family" whose authorship you haven't even considered, you could adopt or foster a person who is already in existence.

In which I accuse Americans of encouraging dishonesty in our leaders

Intellectual honesty is a value that I hold in very high regard. It is, like most virtues, impossible to master completely and yet it is absolutely essential that we continually strive for it if we wish to come to any meaningful conclusions in our thought processes and in our social interactions. It is extremely difficult to prevent our opinions and preconceptions from clouding our reasoning, yet if we should wish to arrive at conclusions that are sound and defensible then we must not allow our personal interests to influence our analysis of the evidence for and against certain positions.

 An example of why this is so important follows: Person A and Person B are having a discussion regarding the nature of the Bible. Person A has a strong personal belief that the Bible is the divinely inspired and protected Word of God, and Person B is undecided about the veracity of this claim.

A:"The Bible is God's message to humanity, and he has protected its teachings from inappropriate alteration over the millennia, so we can be sure that it's message today is in accordance with God's will, regardless of the language or format."

B:"How can we be sure?"

A:"Simple.  The Bible tells us that this is so."

B:"That is not a logically valid supporting argument, it is merely circular."

A:"Yes, to one without faith.  Once you accept it to be true, however, it makes perfect sense."

B:"I see.  Perhaps we should discuss another topic?  Your arguments are irreconcilable with my understanding of logic."

If person A had shelved their personal beliefs (no matter how firmly held) for the sake of the argument and relied instead on proper logical reasoning, then a very interesting conversation could have developed, and one or both parties may have learned new information as a result.  Philosophers can apply a technique that helps to safeguard one from allowing their beliefs and preconceptions from improperly influencing their investigation of an issue.  The technique is to identify one's own beliefs on an issue and, instead of attempting to validate them logically, to try earnestly to disprove them.  The benefits of this are twofold.  First, we are less likely to overlook a contradiction or logical flaw when we are building an argument against our beliefs than we are when seeking to validate them.  Second, presupposing that our beliefs don't change as a result of the investigation, we are now very well prepared to counter arguments against our beliefs.

This brings us to the heart of the issue.  In American politics, few accusations are more damning to a politician than "the flip-flop".  Any politician who changes his or her stance on a Big Issue such as abortion, gay marriage, gun control, social security, or tax policy will be accused of being disingenuous and untrustworthy.  They will be portrayed as being nothing more than a weathervane of public opinion, willing to embrace whatever position is most likely to get them elected or reelected.

While it is almost certainly true that most American politicians are morally vapid megalomaniacs, this is, believe it or not, the lesser of two evils.  Consider this imaginary scenario:  The entire world is plunged into a deep economic depression due to a supernova-sized subprime mortgage bubble bursting, unemployment soars, and the once blissfully ignorant citizens of America are blubbering for their President to magically turn off the negative effects of several decades-worth of unprecedented financial irresponsibility.  Oh, yeah, and he's not allowed to raise taxes on the wealthy.  Now suppose our imaginary President listens to the best advice of the most respected economists on the planet, all of whom disagree on the best approach to take, and so he or she makes  a choice based on the evidence.  Suppose a few months later (s)he's halfway through a massive government spending binge designed to inject liquidity into the economy, and every single one of his economic advisers now approach and say, "uhh, we got it wrong and now we are all unanimously  convinced that the best thing to do would be to stop spending immediately."

Now our imaginary President faces a conundrum.  Should he change his policy?  The best interests of the American people are on one side of the balance, and his reelection is on the other.  Now this admittedly over-wrought fictitious example is meant to demonstrate that we should encourage everyone to make decisions and form beliefs based on the best evidence available to them at the time, rather than penalize them for showing intellectual honesty.

Think about it.  Take it from me, few self-inflicted experiences are as humbling and rewarding as changing your mind about a belief that you have firmly held for a long time.  If I ever should meet a man who has never changed his mind about a thing, then I will have witnessed the ultimate in moral decadence.  His values will be as the clouds, ethereal and out of view, while mine will be like steel, tempered and forged by a lifetime of scrutiny and investigation.

2011 Manning Essay

What follows is an impromptu essay that I wrote in 2011 in order to formulate my thoughts on an important news story.  Much has happened since then, but I have left this essay unedited because I am more interested in documenting my thoughts at the time of their conception than I am with ensuring that my blog entries are always in agreement with my current beliefs. 

In 1946, a top level Nazi officer named Hermann Goering was on trial for war crimes, crimes against peace, and crimes against humanity, for which he would be found guilty and sentenced to death by hanging.  During an interview in his cell, Goering said the following:

            “Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”

            A 21^st century American may be horrified by the possibility that a historical figure as despicable as Hermann Goering may be correct in his opinions about wartime politics, but intellectual honesty would require that we weigh his claims objectively.

            My purpose in writing is to influence social opinion in regard to a recent event that I believe has not been treated in a manner consistent with the values of our country.  Specifically, I am talking about the July 12, 2007 incident of a U.S. Apache attack helicopter firing on a group of individuals in Baghdad, Iraq.  For those unfamiliar with the incident I will give a brief summary:  two Reuters news agency employees were killed along with a number of Iraqi nationals.  Also, two young children were badly injured and their ultimate fates are unknown.  In the wake of the incident Reuters requested an explanation from the Pentagon but were essentially ignored.  Recently, a young American soldier named Bradley Manning got access to a video of the whole incident and leaked it to Wikileaks.org along with a vast amount of other classified material.  Since Wikileaks released the video on a website called collateralmurder.com, the incident has become widely discussed.

            As I intend to give my personal opinions about the content of  the video, it is necessary for me to give some background information on myself.  I am a veteran of Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom, I am currently a civilian but was a Specialist in the Army at the time of my separation.  My tour of duty in Iraq was from November 2007 to January 2009 in the capital city of Baghdad.  I was a light infantryman and was daily exposed to the dangers of war and the difficult decisions that every combat soldier faces.  By coincidence, the region of the city in which my unit lived and operated was nearby to the scene of the July 12, 2007 incident (although I had no knowledge of it until the collateralmurder.com leak), so I believe I have an accurate understanding of the area, the people, their mood, and the Rules of Engagement (ROE).

            The first time I watched the video, I was simply dumbfounded.  When a soldier makes a decision to fire his/her weapon, he/she is responsible for first considering several factors: first and foremost, is my target an enemy combatant?  If yes, then the next consideration should be: will my weapon cause bodily harm to any noncombatants or friendly troops?  If no, then a final consideration should be: is the destructive power of my weapon unnecessarily high for the target in consideration, and if so is there a less destructive but still adequate weapon system at my disposal?  As an infantryman this final consideration was often repeated to me, as our supposed purpose in Iraq was to win the hearts and minds of the people, and it was determined by the strategists that killing a single enemy combatant is not desirable if it requires significant collateral damage to surrounding civilians or property.  The gunner of the Apache helicopter had several minutes to make his assessment, a rare luxury considering these decisions often have to be made split-second.  When the gunner made the decision to fire, it seems his criteria for doing so was that at least two or three of the eight individuals in the group were armed with AK-47s and that one had an RPG.  Despite the less-than-ideal resolution of the Apache's gunsight, I would agree that maybe two of the individuals were carrying items that look like rifles, although I doubt that any expert could positively identify the specific type based on the few seconds of grainy footage.  The RPG, on the other hand, I would argue is extremely dubious.  Not only does it not look like an RPG (it looks more like a camera), but once the helicopter circles around to get a clear shot, the RPG seems to have mysteriously disappeared.  But far more telling as to the nature and intentions of the individuals is their behavior.  These men were not behaving like combatants.  I know firsthand that the enemy combatants are keenly aware of the killing power of Apache helicopters, so when the Apaches are overhead, enemies will often disappear, but at the very least they will seek cover and concealment, not stand around in groups in the middle of the street.  So, my evaluation of consideration number one (is my target an enemy combatant) is s very shaky maybe.  Unfortunately, the gunner's defense falls to pieces after that.  If we allow that two, or even three of the men were armed, that leaves five unarmed men within arm's reach who would not qualify as enemy combatants, and who would surely be killed or severely injured if subjected to fire from a 30mm cannon.  Now, when we consider that these men, enemies or not, were not firing at the helicopter or at the U.S. ground forces, we must agree that they did not represent an immediate threat and hence the gunner could have continued to observe and wait for a better opportunity to fire.  The third consideration (unnecessary firepower) is tricky, because the 30mm cannon is the least powerful weapon in the Apache's arsenal.  But since we determined that the targets were not presenting an immediate threat to anyone and were in a residential neighborhood, perhaps the risk of killing civilians and damaging houses should have outweighed the gunner's desire to annihilate the group.

            The point here is not to second-guess the actions of our soldiers; after all they have a much more comprehensive understanding of the situation than us.  I am absolutely adamant that we show leniency and understanding toward the actions of our troops as they are trained and equipped for killing and we have chosen to send them to a theater where the line between enemy and civilian is intentionally blurred.  So even though my personal feeling is that the helicopter gunner fired on those people because he wanted to, I am not calling for him to be punished.  The real crime here was the military's cover-up.  The cover-up not only demonstrates that, at some level, this incident was recognized as a mistake, but it also shows us a frightening reality of our armed services today: their extreme arrogance and the attitude that they don't have to answer to us.  I encountered this attitude myself during my service and was perplexed by it, but this level of blatant disregard for their responsibility is alarming.  I think that the botched cover-up of Pat Tillman's death by friendly fire was a perfect example of how confident these military leaders are in their belief that they can selectively filter what they report back to the American people, and that if they have to use deception in order to save face, they will not hesitate to do so.  And then there's the Rolling Stone article that got General Stanley McChrystal fired by President Obama, exposing a level of arrogance that I hadn't even imagined.  If these few instances, not to mention the Abu Ghraib scandal, have come to light, then surely there have been a few that have gone unnoticed.  And now Bradley Manning is being prosecuted by the U.S. Army for leaking classified material.  Interestingly, his charges all seem to be more concerned with keeping up appearances rather than genuine concern that he has endangered the country by releasing “classified” material.  Most of his charges end with the phrase, “such conduct being prejudicial to good order and discipline in the armed forces and being of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.”  Last I heard Mr. Manning was being held by the Army in a military prison in Kuwait.

            This is a truly dangerous relationship for the military to have with the people.  The people are partly guilty for allowing this relationship to develop, by essentially saying, “we don't want to know, just tell me how much money you need,” and the Pentagon has been happy to oblige.  I think that it is time we send a message to the Generals and Admirals: “We're watching you, and make no mistake: you answer to us.”  Perhaps a good place to start asserting ourselves would be on behalf of Mr. Manning, demanding a public trial in the United States.

Mass Effect 3 ending

First let me say that I am fairly ashamed that my first post in what I hope will be an intellectually stimulating blog is about a video game.  Let me offer two defenses: first, of the many topics which I have "in the works", most address moral or philosophical questions which are more or less timeless, so they can be left unfinished in the interest of weighing in on a pop-culture phenomenon which will very soon be forgotten.  Second, if you give this entry a fair read, you will find that it is about much more than a video game.

So, the obligatory SPOILERS AHEAD.

Now, for any reader unfamiliar with this subject matter, I offer this summary.  Mass Effect 3 is the third and final video game in the Mass Effect series, developed by a company called Bioware.  This series is set in a science fiction universe more painstakingly created and detail-oriented than any other sci-fi universe that I have encountered in video games or movies, to include Star Wars and Star Trek.  The story of the games is not remarkable, but the lengths to which the creators have gone to define and describe the technologies, settings, and cultures in the games are so great as to truly remind one that "science fiction" originally meant a blending of REAL SCIENCE and imagination.  Instead of saying, "there are fast ships and laser guns and artificial gravity in space," the writers of this game have reduced the mystery of their imaginary technologies to a level easily swallowed by the analytically-minded.  As an example, the sci-fi staple of "guns that shoot lasers" is incarnated as a piece of equipment that fully respects the REAL laws of physics of our universe, except that there is one imaginary material that, when electrified, emits a field which changes the mass of matter within it.  Those who are curious are given encyclopedia-like entries in the game that describe in detail the physical workings of everything from the "shields" of military spacecraft to the bizarre consequences of  faster-than-light travel.

Bear with me now, this level of detail on my part will pay off later.

Next, I will address the controversy.  A huge percentage of core Mass Effect fans are seriously upset with the way the trilogy comes to an end.  Critics are immediately dismissive of these fans as entitled whiners, which is understandable to anyone who has not experienced the trilogy.  Unfortunately I have read many articles by professional journalists who all seem to miss the entire point of the fans' unhappiness.  If there is one point that I make here today let it be this:  Fans are not complaining about the story being over, or about how happy or sad the final moments were, or about who lived or died, or about how *they* would have written it.  Fans ARE complaining about how the final moments are utterly incongruous with the entire culture, if you will, of the series.  Read on, and keep an open mind.

I have seen dozens of references to "100 hours" as an estimate of the time it takes for an average playthrough of all three games a single time.  This number bugs me, as it seems irrelevant.  I personally have spent an estimated 300 hours (that's embarrassing, even over a three-year period) with the series, because these games are built around the idea of making tough choices which may effect anything from a couple's choice to immunize their unborn child to the extinction of all sapient life in the galaxy.  Not every choice is black and white, and even for those that are, I may wish to play through twice in order to see the effects of all possible choices.  So other die-hard fans (many of them more die-hard than myself), who are the upset ones, have invested many times more than 100 hours in this series.  I point this out because it is not at all comparable to watching a movie, but it is somewhat comparable (in terms of time spent) to reading a very long novel.  The other reason why that 100 hour figure is irrelevant is because Bioware, the creator, must have spent thousands upon thousands of paid man-hours to create just the details of the universe that were ultimately unnecessary to crafting a successful game.  Personally I think this may be largely responsible for the success of the series, but I'm largely ignorant on that topic.  My point is, the talented folks who created this game were interested enough in their own product to polish it to a much, much higher degree than is customary in today's popular video games.  Keep that in mind as you read on.

A lot of this controversy is tangled up in critics (critical of the upset fans, not the ending, I know that's a weird way to phrase it) arguing that the storytellers have a right to tell their story how they want to, and we (the fans) don't have a right to demand change.  They have missed the point entirely.  Let me demonstrate.  Before I even unwrapped my Mass Effect 3 Collector's Edition (again, embarrassing, but I thought it would be informative to point out that this is the only game I have ever pre-ordered, much less bought the collector's edition of), I was very unsure of how the game would end.  I was virtually certain that the main character would perish, and I even thought there was a really good chance that it would end in failure, i.e. galactic genocide.  I was very excited nonetheless.  I was along for the ride, wherever Bioware chose to take me.  During the two weeks or so it took me to get through the game, I was hooked.  I had to make choices that genuinely made me squirm, and I loved the game for that.  I never once adopted the mindset, "that part would have been better this way."  In short, the game was the best video game I can remember playing through.  Up until the end, I was genuinely on the edge of my seat.  How would this epic story come to an end?  Failure seemed likely, success just within reach, and I am always on guard for the unresolved ending which leaves room for a moneymaking sequel.

Then something very strange happened.  The plot was derailed, and I was subjected to a short interactive cinematic sequence which can only be described as surreal.  Not surreal as in the feel of the game was dreamlike, but rather the events in the game were suddenly so foreign to my 300 hours of familiarity that I felt disoriented.  Then the game ends in a way which is just so very inorganic.  The best way that I can think to describe it to one who hasn't experienced it, is if the last 50 pages of a novel were swapped with the last 50 pages of an unrelated novel.  It wasn't intrinsically horrible stuff, just not relevant to the story in progress.

So.  My personal, though uninformed, guess is that Bioware ran out of time.  This seems likely to me because as I noted earlier,  they seemed to genuinely cherish their product in its previous forms.  If that assessment is correct, then they do have something to answer for.  Artistic integrity is not a valid defense against not finishing a masterpiece.  And here's the really sickening part.  If they chose to release a new ending (I'm only saying this because they have confirmed that they won't), one that is up to the standards of the rest of their work, I would likely be willing to give them some of my hard-earned money for it.  I know, I know, that is disgusting.  But hear me out.  These games have stood head and shoulders above their contemporaries, and yet all XBox 360 and PS3 games (I don't know about PC) have the same shelf price.  I have bought games that I only played for 20 hours, so shouldn't there be a price difference for a game that will keep me interested for 5 times as long?  After all, a Ferrari doesn't cost the same as a Toyota (no offense).

In closing I wish to point out to the journalists who have missed the point, that the upset fans are not so much dissatisfied with the type of ending that was delivered, but rather that the ending does not fit the story.  This is NOT a small distinction. 

There are many more interesting facets to this controversy, but I have gone on for far too long already, and most of what I left out are the aspects most heavily discussed elsewhere.