In the Name of the Best Within You

So as you can see, I tweaked the colors a bit. Let me know what you think and if you have any other suggestions.

As I mentioned previously, for the past several months I've had some personal problems. I have no desire to go into the details, but suffice to say I was depressed. I had basically given up on my goals and was distracting myself by the most convenient ways possible. But the more I tried to distract myself, the worse my situation became. Thankfully I've been through this kind of situation before, and I know how to get out of it. I'd like to share a bit of how I've been doing that, in the hopes that it will help others in a similar situation.

Physical exercise is like medication. I've never been happier than when I was the most physically fit in my life. At one point I was running 3-4 miles several times a week and lifting weights regularly. That feeling of productivity, of vitality, it is like nothing else. It creates such an energy that everything becomes easier, and more desirable. 2 months ago, when a stomach problem landed me in the emergency room, I virtually stopped exercising on the advice of my doctors. The loss of regular exercise created a feeling of utter futility in action, in pursuing goals.

Thankfully, after taking medication, my stomach is starting to get better. I've reached the point where I can exercise again! I have a very simple routine, but it is quite effective. I start off with 30-45 minutes of cardio in the morning. I can't stress how helpful that is, physically and mentally. That cardio workout gives your metabolism such a boost that your burning of calories for the rest of the day is much more effective. It's also just a great way to start off the day, in an active fashion.

Before dinner I work out using mostly free weights, and it is very effective. For anyone interested in starting, or in getting better advice, I recommend The New Encyclopedia of Modern Bodybuilding: The Bible of Bodybuilding by Arnold Schwarzenegger and Bill Dobbins. The book is massive. It has detailed instructions on how to do every weight exercise imaginable, great nutrition information, stretching methods, and so on. There is even a specific program created for beginners that is very helpful. I've been using that program myself, with some custom alterations.

While I was still attending Drew, I didn't lift weights, but I did play two sports which I found to be incredibly enjoyable. Virtually every day at 4 I would head down to the gym to play squash for at least an hour, usually two. That consistent routine of playing the sport every day, gradually improving my skills, and competing with several friends was incredibly beneficial. I always felt great afterwards and ready to take on the rest of the night. On Sundays I would play ultimate frisbee (and I still do!). It involves a lot of running and it is a relatively easy sport to learn, not to mention that it is incredibly fun.

Now that I've started to exercise again, my spirits have been lifted beyond the heights of Icarus. So if you're feeling any sense of futility or frustration I highly recommend that you start a physical exercise regimen. It has helped me immensely. (Good nutrition of course has been equally important, but I won't go into detail on that here). If any of you are interested in starting a routine of your own, or sprucing it up, I'd be happy to share more details of what I've done.

I leave you with perhaps the most inspiring quote that Ayn Rand ever wrote:

"In the name of the best within you, do not sacrifice this world to those who are its worst. In the name of the values that keep you alive, do not let your vision of man be distorted by the ugly, the cowardly, the mindless in those who have never achieved his title. Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. Do not let your fire go out, spark by irreplaceable spark, in the hopeless swamps of the approximate, the not-quite, the not-yet, the not-at-all. Do not let the hero in your soul perish, in lonely frustration for the life you deserved, but have never been able to reach. Check your road and the nature of your battle. The world you desired can be won, it exists, it is real, it is possible, it's yours."

Richard Dawkins and Atheism

On several occasions friends of mine have recommended that I check out the work of Richard Dawkins, a prominent professor at Oxford University, who is also a leading activist in the atheist movement. He's written on the subject, produced television specials, lectured around the world, and participated in countless interviews/Q&A sessions. Even South Park had a two-part episode last season parodying Dawkins and his utopian vision of an atheistic future. Indeed, he is one of the most recognizable figures in atheism, which is remarkable given how much of a minority we are. (Yes, as I suspect most of you know, I'm an atheist).

I could easily write a long post about why I'm an atheist and why others should be, but for the moment I will leave that aside. Tonight I just want to point you in the direction of some videos of Dawkins that I or some of my friends have found...

Dawkins appeared on an interview with Paula Zahn on CNN. Apparently they had a panel discussion about discrimination against atheists in America and "forgot" to have an atheist...Oops! So here is a follow-up interview on the same subject. The basic question of the interview is why atheists are mistrusted and feared in America. Ironically, from the very start, Zahn appears to be quite uncomfortable with the whole subject. When she suggests that some theists may feel threatened by the possibility of self-doubt after talking to an atheists, it seems like she herself feels that way. All in all, this is a very eloquent statement by Dawkins. I especially love his last sentence. Right on.

Here is Dawkins on a BBC interview promoting his book, The God Delusion. He argues that all religious people are irrational and deluded for their belief, and strongly so.

For a more extended version of the premise of The God Delusion, here is a television special that Dawkins produced. Granted, it points at the obvious targets: Christian evangelicals, Islamic fundamentalists, and so on. But, it does a great job of simply describing the form of faith taken consistently. That is, these fundamentalists are the paramount examples of the abandonment of reason and individual judgment in favor of mysticism and collective authority.

The last video I have for you is arguably the most uplifting and positive. In this television special, Dawkins asks The Big Question: Why Are We Here? Setting up the basic principles of natural selection and evolution, Dawkins notes that we are left with the gaping question of our purpose in existence. While his answer comes short of the very specific purpose posited by Ayn Rand, in its essentials, it is leaning in the same direction.

Enjoy! And please comment.

The Spartan 300

Well I promised a post on the movie 300 so here it is. If you're already familiar with the history, then it's impossible for me to spoil the ending. But, there are significant differences between the actual history and the movie, so there may be some spoilers ahead...


For those of you who haven't seen it, but are still reading anyway, the movie is loosely based on the famous last stand of 300 Spartans at the Battle of Thermopylae. Facing invasion from one of the mot massive armies assembled up to that point, the loosely connected Greek city-states were threatened by enslavement into the Persian empire. Massively outnumbered, an alliance of these Greek city-states sent a force of about 7,000 men to stand against an army at least 250,000 strong, but possibly ranging as high as a million. The Persians landed their forces Thermopylae and needed to traverse a very narrow mountain pass to enter open territory, where they certainly would have decimated the Greeks. But the Greeks decided to head the invasion off at this mountain pass, where the Persians' numbers would mean very little in comparison to the more skilled training of the Greeks - particularly the 300 Spartans. Despite fending off the Persians for two days, it is believed that a traitor revealed a pass around the mountain and thus the Persians were able to surround the Greeks. The Spartans sacrificed themselves in order to buy time for the remaining Greeks to mount a defense. Their sacrifice was instrumental in keeping the Persians at bay and allowing for a proper defense to be assembled. Nearly a year later, a reinvigorated alliance of Greeks assembled to defeat the Persians on land. The ultimate defeat of the Persian invasion paved the way for Greek domination of the region and an outburst of culture, knowledge, and wealth. In fact, you could say that the Spartans "saved" Western Civilization.

Being the saviors of Western Civilization, the movie focuses specifically on the 300 Spartans - their society, their values, their leader - King Leonides, and their military prowess. However, the movie equivocates the Spartans with the values of Western Civilization that they ultimately defended. The other Greek city-states are virtually ignored, particularly the paramount importance of the Athenian navy that was crucial in devastating the Persian force. And most importantly, the portrayal of Spartan society is so completely off that I suspect that this historical battle was "cherry-picked" for use as an analogy. In the movie, the Spartans are the beacon of freedom, liberty, and reason. Any historical analysis shows that the Spartans embodied the polar opposite of these values. In fact, by modern standards, Sparta would be considered a totalitarian dictatorship. Only a very small portion of Spartan society was "free", but that is quite a stretch of that word. Hand-picked at youth, a small class of young boys were taken from their families at the age of 7 and trained to become utterly ruthless warriors. The training was incredibly brutal, and the warriors that emerged could be described as savages. As for the rest of Spartan society, most of them were "helots", essentially a slave-class that took care of all the physical labor for the society. To ensure that the helots would continue to work, the warrior-class was ordered to continually make war upon the helots.

It was this brutal force that was unleashed upon the Persians at Thermopylae. The Spartans certainly had courage and strength, but in no way were they conscious defenders of freedom and reason. Instead, I suspect that the Spartans were portrayed in this fashion as an allegory for modern events. It was continually emphasized throughout the movie that the Persians sought to spread mysticism and tyranny. The Persian military looked nothing like Persians, but rather looked very much like Muslim armies. For all of these reasons, I suspect that this movie is in fact a call to arms to defend Western Civilization against Islamic fundamentalism. In support of this claim, I refer you to a NPR interview with Frank Miller, the creator of 300.

Despite some heavy artistic flaws (such as the incredibly inaccurate history and excessive violence), I applaud this movie for its message. Islamic fundamentalism is something to be strongly opposed.

The NY Times Grows a Pair

As you can see, I haven't written here for over two months. I've been dealing with some personal things, and I'm not one to publicly advertise for sympathy or advice, so I haven't posted. But, I'm starting to pull myself up and eager to start writing again. So here we go.

The New York Times published a great article today and I absolutely must comment on it. Everything that I say from this point on will assume a familiarity with the article, so please read the whole thing.

"Mr. Gore depicted a future in which temperatures soar, ice sheets melt, seas rise, hurricanes batter the coasts and people die en masse. “Unless we act boldly,” he wrote, “our world will undergo a string of terrible catastrophes.”

The article essentially makes the point that Gore's alarmism about global warming should be cooled. While most of the scientific community agrees that warming is occurring, they are not as unified as to the nature of its cause(s).

The best testimony comes from a Dr. Easterbrook, an emeritus professor of geology. "He hotly disputed Mr. Gore’s claim that “our civilization has never experienced any environmental shift remotely similar to this."

Nonsense, Dr. Easterbrook told the crowded session. He flashed a slide that showed temperature trends for the past 15,000 years. It highlighted 10 large swings, including the medieval warm period. These shifts, he said, were up to “20 times greater than the warming in the past century.”

Granted, this is just one testimony, and the article is not some extreme repudiation of global warming advocates or the scientists who support them; but nor should it be. I'm fairly sure that the climate is changing. And, I'm not closed to the possibility that humans are a significant factor, though if we are to take Dr. Easterbrook at his word--we are not such a factor.

What I am closed to is environmentalist fanatics who want to crush all debate and behave like religious zealots. Look at how these people act. They shun anyone who questions the severity of their claims and seek to brand such people as heretics. I'm not ready to say, nor should anyone, that global warming is not man-made. I will always defend the profound need for constant debate, questioning, and discussion on a matter of profound importance.

It is for this reason that I commend the New York Times for this article, and encourage all of you to take it to heart. Do not let an irrational fear, created by a man like Al Gore, cloud your judgment. It is true that we should be concerned about the potential consequences of climate change, but we cannot allow that to suspend our reason, and silence debate.

Look for a post about the movie 300 to come soon.

Bush's Speech and Iraq Policy

Last night I wrote a general statement about Iraq policy in an e-mail. I'd like to start by posting an adaptation of that here, followed by updated comments since hearing Bush's address tonight.

Spreading "democracy" is destined to fail without other subsequent conditions being met. The simple ability to elect a government does not guarantee freedom, security, and prosperity. In fact, it can do quite the opposite. If the people of a country do not have the right values, they have the ability to elect awful leaders. After WWII, we saw a lot of Arab nationalists taking power in several Middle Eastern countries. They downplayed the role of Islam in government and were generally thugs and strong-men. Despite this, fundamentalist Islam remained as the undercurrent of popular opinion. By removing these Arab nationalist strong-men and bringing democracy to the Middle East, we achieve the exact opposite of that which we want. Since the people are motivated primarily by fundamentalist Islam, they will elect leaders that reflect this interest. Thus in Afghanistan we see Sharia law and a Constitution largely based on Islam. In Iraq we see a slightly watered-down version of this, with the religious majority of the country in power. In the Palestinian territories we see the fundamentalist group Hamas popularly elected into power. In Lebanon it seems highly possible that the fundamentalist group Hezbollah will gain popular support and rule the country. Are you starting to see why democracy is not an inherent good?

What exists in Iraq now is a very weak government that is propped up only by our presence there, and does not actually reflect the popular will of the country. Most of the will of the country is either behind Sunni terrorists or Shi'ite militias, both killing each other and us in the process. I do not think it that far off to call the current situation a civil war. The only way to really obliterate the insurgency is to be absolutely ruthless. In 2003, extremist Shi'ite militias took control of Falljuah and occupied the city. (Correction: Fallujah is Sunni, not Shi'a. I mixed it up with a similar occurence in Najaf and Karbala, two centers of the Shia. Thank you Jason for the correction!) Our response was weeks of negotiation followed by a very timid threat that we would enter the city if they did not leave. We gave them ample warning, they left, we performed some "operations" and "took back" the city. We scattered these forces, only to have them prop themselves up elsewhere. They actually came back and re-took Fallujah, and we did the same kind of thing. The only really effective way to stop such an insurgency is to absolutely crush every hope that the opposition has. They have to be absolutely convinced that nothing they can do will achieve their objectives. We have not come even close to doing this. We have been afraid of civilian casualties and causing too much damage, and thus have never engaged in the kind of military operations necessary to crush an enemy. Instead, our primary strategy has been to pour ridiculous sums of money into the country in the attempt to create jobs and economic prosperity. But economic prosperity is impossible without first having the rule of law and well-protected security. We virtually ignored the security situation and poured all our effort into reconstruction prematurely. Not only was the reconstruction INCREDIBLY half-assed, but it was impossible to achieve given the security situation.

As I see it our only option for victory is to be incredibly ruthless. We assassinate Al-Sadr (the biggest leader of the extremist Shi'ite militias) and every other Islamic cleric that advocates violence of any kind. We move into several cities and decimate insurgent bases of operation and weapons caches. But most importantly, by being ruthless in hitting these targets, we must scare the living crap out of anyone that even thinks of supporting the insurgency. I am talking absolute Machiavellian tactics here. To do this we would have to completely abandon the notion (for the time being) of reconstructing Iraq. Reconstruction is not possible until the enemy has been completely wiped out or has such an utterly devastated morale that they see no point in further fighting. So in summary, we completely abandon all notions of creating a democracy and reconstructing the country economically, and turn it back into a severe war zone until the insurgency is crushed. At that point, we could consider economic reconstruction, and only at that point.

Here are my thoughts about President Bush's address to the nation tonight:

I have mixed feelings about Bush's address tonight. Surprisingly, there were several aspects of his speech that I found to be encouraging. While I am skeptical of the actual implementation of these positive suggestions, they do sound encouraging. For example, Bush openly recognized the fact that our rules of engagement and general counter-insurgency strategy have been utter failures. He specifically recognized that we did not have a commitment to hold territory once we "cleared" it of insurgents and that in many cases we would not even disrupt certain insurgent bases of operation for fear of offending Iraqis. I am very encouraged by his promise to eliminate these restrictions and to place securing actual territory as a prime objective.

However, I am skeptical as to how much these new rules of engagement will be implemented. Bush's speech tonight was far from promising ruthlessness. The rhetoric was partially there, but I question how tough we will actually be on the insurgents on the ground. We have to absolutely demonstrate that they will be decimated and that they will have no quarter. Up to this point, we have done nothing of the kind. At this point, I do not think we have the political capital to implement such a ruthless campaign (if we ever had it in the first place, which is suspect). If we were fighting for a really good cause, these kinds of tactics would be justified. But what would we really be killing all these people for? To create a democratic Iraq that will ultimately be dominated by Islamic fundamentalism and will stab us in the back anyway?

So in summary, I'm intrigued the military suggestions that Bush has recommended, but while I'd like to be optimistic, I'm skeptical that they will have any effect at this point. Too little too late.

What are your thoughts?

Education and Healthcare Redux

So I've had a bit of a crazy week. Things have finally calmed down some and I can get back to writing here and responding to all of the thoughtful comments that I've received. There were so many comments on my post on education and healthcare that I thought I would respond to them all in a post. I'll start with healthcare.

Doughnutman: We probably pay the most and have one of the worst returns because we have the worst of both worlds. I would not be surprised if a completely socialized system of healthcare was actually better than what we have now. We pretend that we have a market system of medicine, so high costs are blamed solely on capitalism. Corruption, patronage, and laziness are thus easier to get away with. If we have an entirely socialized system, there will be no one else to blame. A good analogy would be Hamas before achieving government power in Palestine. As long as they were not part of the system, they could avoid accountability.

You make valid points about the weaknesses of our system, but I do not accept the premise that things would improve under socialized medicine. Look how government subsidy of any industry works. Sure, access improves: more people are able to receive the service or good that is being subsidized. But, quality plummets. Move to Canada, where you'll wait online for months for access to basic medical care because bureaucracy and inefficiency are rampant. And doctors will be happier?! Give me a break. Their freedom to practice medicine as they see fit is completely taken away and their hands are tied behind their back. Under socialized medicine, doctors become slaves. Yes, I do not exaggerate. Slaves. If I granted the assumption that socialized medicine was more effective (which I do not), nothing, would make it ok to violate the fundamental rights of EVERY individual, including doctors. I do not care if socialized medicine would save 1,000 babies per year, or any other ridiculous statistic. It does NOT justify trampling on anyone's rights.

As for the comments by Anonymous and Mark, Cheers!

Now onto education. I'm very happy to see comments by two public school teachers! Miss Judice, you are absolutely right about the fundamental problem of teachers who focus almost solely on preparing their students for standardized tests. I'm sure that you recall studying for a test that you did not care anything about, memorizing what you needed to know, and then forgetting most of the material shortly after. At least, I remember much of my public school education being this way. When teachers do not have to worry about the satisfaction of parents (who are paying for the education), but rather "teaching" their students to parrot out enough material for a meaningless federal test, it's no surprise that the quality of education suffers. Parents and other individuals that are forcibly paying into a public education cannot withdraw their support when they think the education being offered is poor. Thus, there really is very little economic pressure for educational reform. Now, I do not make the claim that infusing more economic pressure through the free market would completely rehabilitate educational philosophy. But, at the very least, it would make some improvement. Parents who are paying directly for their child's education are going to have a more vested interest in whether their money is being well-spent. I'm preaching to the choir here with you I think, but it's good to reiterate.

You make another great point about the length of education. Did you ever feel in high school that you were being taught the same things that should have been taught a long time ago? I felt this way a lot, particularly in English and History classes. If earlier education were much improved, the kind of branching off that you talk about would definitely be a possibility, and quite beneficial to many students. If school curriculums (curriculi?, lol) were ordered like Lisa VanDamme suggests, students would be much better off.

Justin, it's going to be extremely difficult to transition from what we have now to a good educational system. Our system right now is so abhorrent and pitiful in my eyes right now, that I see any improvement as a very long-term process. As with most government programs, simply pulling the plug is probably not a good idea. It's like trying to get off a drug addiction to heroin. Going cold turkey is usually more harmful than being on the drug, so rehab centers first put their patients on lesser drugs to gradually make them better. What exactly the "lesser drug" is for our educational system, I do not know. But perhaps the best course is to create a new kind of private school that can eventually replace our failing public schools. Lisa VanDamme has done just that. Her educational philosophy is essentially that there is a necessary order to conceptual knowledge that must be followed in order to actually teach children. Take science for example. In most classrooms, Newton's Laws of Motion are explained in the following way. The teacher takes a piece of chalk, goes up to the blackboard, and writes down the laws. The students are told to copy these laws and memorize them. There will be a quiz tomorrow. What is actually learned here? There is no understanding about why Netwon came up with these laws or the logical progression from earlier science. They are to be taken as floating abstractions, accepted as truth by faith. To boot, students are asked how they "feel" about this knowledge. On what basis could they have any valid opinion, given how the material has been taught? Sadly, this pattern is followed not only in science but in just about every academic field.

As for teachers, a fully private educational system would hurt some teachers and benefit others. Success in the field would be largely based on merit, not the circumstance of which school district has the most political pull via unions or school boards. Given how incredibly valuable education is, I think good teachers would be well-rewarded for their efforts, most likely more than they are now. Having a private education system would force parents to readjust their economic priorities somewhat - spending less on luxury items and more on what is really important. As it stands now, they take it for granted that their kids will receive an education, since they are forced to pay anyway. But when forced with the possibility that their kids will not be educated, they will focus more of their money on rewarding those who do educate well. Also, if I was running a school, I would definitely do away with the nonsensical standardized testing that goes on there now. Multiple choice?! This rewards only what the child can memorize best, and leaves no lasting knowledge at all. I would make all tests short answer and essay. As for your criticisms of No Child Left Behind, they are dead on. Republicans (or Democrats) in charge of educational philosophy and administration...terrible idea.

Busy Schedule

I appreciate the explosion of comments in the past couple of days! They have all been well-said and interesting to read. I intend fully to respond to all of them in the near future. Going back to work has made my schedule a little more hectic. Plus, I got a wonderful present from Route 287 in the form of a flat-tire this evening. I may be completely tied up trying to take care of that tomorrow, but hopefully I will get home early enough in the evening that I can respond to all! Thanks again.