Already Old

I used to get a self-esteem boost by pointing out to myself that I was the youngest one at an important business meeting or the youngest one in business class on the airplane. That hasn't happened in a while. It's not that I am getting any less important (I hope), it's just getting harder to find people older than me.

Thanks to this upright walking nonsense, I have had a bad back for quite a while. Now, however, if I don't make a conscious effort to stretch before any strenuous activity, I am in serious pain for several days afterwards.

In some ways I have always been an old-fogey. I went through my Beethoven phase some 20 years ago. My fashion tastes have always been rather conservative--especially in the shoe/sneaker department. My first new car as a swinging 22 year old single was a 4-door Chevy Citation. I replaced it 12 years later with a Plymouth Acclaim that I joked was the same color as the hair of the women who should be driving it (periwinkle blue). So far, I have been able to avoid the blue jumpsuit. I believe it is a comfort thing. Being past the breeding phase, seniors no longer feel the need to impress others with their looks. Comfort and price and ease of use take priority. The jumpsuit wins in all categories.

Mark

Along the lines of the "What is the difference between the corrupt communist or the rich capitalist?"...

If a young man who feels his people are displaced or repressed drops a bomb on the people who displace and repress, we in the west call him a terrorist. If a western soldier follows orders to drop a bomb on a city, he is a hero who risked his life for freedom.

Who has the higher moral ground? I could argue neither (or both). If the individual is doing what he feels will improve the quality of life (or reduce the suffering) of more people than were harmed, then his act was moral. Since each of us bases this calculation on the data we have available, we arrive at different answers. It is likely that the same data can arrive into different brains and be calculated differently. Hence our custom of argument. This might be because different brains assign different priorities to different parameters. If both sides assign priorities that favor "me and people similar to me", then the battle continues.

How about the ethnic cleanser? If I truly believe that the world will be a better place without Armenians (or Macedonians, or Jews, or Canaanites) living on this particular plot of land is it okay? The ethnic cleanser seems to placing a very high priority on those genetically (and/or memetically) closer to himself. Is it western practice prosecute an ethnic cleanser using the argument that all humans should be treated equally with no favoritism to any particular group.

Taking the cleanser's argument to the extreme, I should sacrifice (place at risk) myself for my family, sacrifice my family for my ethnic group, sacrifice my ethnic group for humanity, sacrifice humanity for life on earth. The westerner's argument would seem to say that I should never place myself at risk for my family. Is this right? Is there an optimum point at which risk should be placed? Sociobiology, using genetics as a priority seems to favor the cleanser.

When an entrepreneur digs up a buried treasure and sells off the good stuff to the highest bidder, he is a grave robber. If a western intellectual digs up buried treasure he is an archeologist. In the end, the stuff was dug up.

Maybe the difference here is the amount of people that will benefit from your activities. A grave robber helps himself and the rich buyer. An archeologist will carefully reconstruct history and teach others of what he finds. He will possibly provide data that can be used by others to better adjust their judgment parameters.

Melodies

I was watching the Discovery Channel (our link to the English speaking world) and saw James Burke on "Connections" and Scott Steadmen in "How Did They Build That?". Both presented their subjects (Burke a little more so) in that clear, pleasant, melodic tone of voice. Give one of these shows a try and maybe you'll see where I'm coming from.

Mark

On being Old

I am getting comfortable with the idea. I am middle-aged. That uncertain age. In a way I am still very much a child at heart, I refuse to grow up, I enjoy being childlike (the good word) and at times I am childish (the bad word). I have now finally given up the pretence of being young and cool, what a sham that was.

Grave robbers

The difference between archaeology and grave robbing does come down to how much care they take with the artefacts. Indiana Jones is a poor role model. Real archaeologists spend their life on their knees working with infinite care and value the information and insight more than the jewels. In earlier days the dividing line was very blurred, Lord Elgin is a classic example, did he save or steal the Parthenon marbles? I have no doubt that today he would not be allowed to act in such a way by respectable academic archaeologists, but by the standards of the day? That is a much more difficult judgement call.

Terrorists and Freedom Fighters

The way I look at this is the crucial points are whether or not the violence is proportional, whether the targets are legitimate and whether or not other ways of achieving the ends are available.

Looking at hard cases can be instructive.

'Bomber' Harris is regarded as equivalent to a war criminal by many people for his prosecution of the war through area bombing, especially in Dresden. I think that this charge has some merit, but I will have to give him the benefit of the doubt. There is no doubt in my mind that his intention was clear, the prosecution of the war to ultimate victory, he was following the policy of his government, he was interpreting the will of the British people. If it could be proven that he knew how slight was the impact of bombing on war production compared to the cost in lives he could be convicted. I think a Scottish style not proven verdict is appropriate. In total war civilians are legitimate targets if their deaths can be seen as advancing a military cause (reducing output) or achieving a victory through the collapse of morale. This is a difficult calculus.

IRA

The IRA fail at the first hurdle, they cannot be seen as legitimate because they have a democratic way to achieve their goals available to them. Well, it isn't available because they don't have enough support. Their actions can be condemned outright, and should be, because to do otherwise is to grant legitimacy to any minority that has a cause it is prepared to fight for; from the Ku Klux Klan, through animal rights to the all men are rapists and deserve to die brigade.

It really annoys me to hear people talking about "getting round the table of democracy" in connection with the IRA. Al Gore was not invited to sit around any table to thrash out a compromise. Democracy has nothing to do with carving up power between armed groups.

They also fail the test of legitimacy of targets and proportionality. Although there is no need to discuss that, as they have no case.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki   Tough call. Civilians were legitimate targets because a state of total war was in place. This was not a surprise attack, it was part of an on-going bombing campaign. Nobody in those cities had any reason to expect themselves not to be seen as targets. Was it proportionate? Compared to the anticipated losses of an opposed landing, yes, it was. Uncle Sam saw fit to produce 375,000 Purple Heart medals in anticipation of casualties in the landings on the main islands of Japan. Was there an alternative? No. A demonstration explosion would not have had the same effect, and besides, they only had the one plutonium bomb left after the test, the efficacy of the uranium weapon was never in doubt. If they demonstrated the last plutonium bomb and were not taken seriously, then what?

Ethnic Cleansing

I see your point. Genocide is a rational act. In a way that is a good thing, you can never tackle anything if you see it as irrational and bizarre, if you can't understand it how can you battle it? At least by seeing the rationality in genocide we have a chance to come up with some antidotes and to see when it is a real threat. If it is unthinkable how can you predict when it might happen? Seeing it as the act of evil men is a recipe for allowing it to happen. Ethnic cleansers love their children and dogs, we must remember that. We must also be aware that any one of us could do the same in the appropriate circumstances. We must minimize the chances of such circumstances arising.

Melody

I will listen carefully next time James Burke comes on, but I think I am finally getting your point.

Martin

Author of Correct Me If I'm Wrong

(and potential mass murderer)

[In response to announcement of a withdrawl from newsgroups]

The self policing Usenet finally got to you eh? How did they do it? Was it pure guilt or did they impose economic sanctions. Or did you finally get that letter bomb?

I find myself with some spare time. I have to come into work this weekend. This means no visit to the family :-( I have been getting to the point to where I live for Friday at 3:45 so I can hit the road. This one though, is especially hard because I haven't seen the wife for two weeks since she's been in the States to take care of her mom. I couldn't much argue, however, because the wife of the guy who asked me to come in lives in the states and they see each other only about once every three months. Oh well. Maybe I'll clean my desk or vacuum my apartment. Better yet....

Religious Art

One of the reasons the religions we see today are still popular is because they incorporated art into their memeplex. In fact, religion may have been the original inspiration for art. Did Ugg paint his cave (Actually we see cave paintings today because they are in caves. There probably were other earlier drawings that didn't survive the weather.) to show off his skills or to petition the gods for more deer to hunt? Some of the earliest sculptures seem to be fertility symbols. Someone was apparently asking something for more babies. (On second thought, maybe it's just an earlier version of a popular calendar?) Like I said earlier, one of the good things about going to church was to view the nice statues. No doubt, many people went to church because of the magnificent artwork adorning them. I wouldn't think that being told you were going to hell could get you there by itself. Just because religion inspired a work of art shouldn't make the work revolting. If it is pleasing to look at and inspires pleasant thoughts, it does no harm. What if an otherwise pleasant work of art inspires someone to kill his unbelieving neighbor? One must then ask if it is because of the art or because of associations in the mind of the viewer planted by a zealot priest? One reason people appreciate art (thanks Steve, I probably read something like this in How The Mind Works) such as paintings is that they are simply optical illusions. They trick they mind into believing it is seeing something--a person, landscape, etc. that isn't really there. If the subject triggers some emotion or memory, the artist succeeded.

Apollo Genesis

Why do I get the lump in my throat when I hear the Apollo 8 astronauts read from Genesis? I don't see Genesis 1:1 so much praising God as praising creation. Regardless of how we got here, we are here and look what we've done! We are awed by our accomplishment, yet humbled by our fragility. We see the earth as a planet for the first time. Everything and everyone we have ever known is located on that little blue and white marble. What gets me the most are the last words, "...all of you on the good earth." Actually, they were not from Genesis, but added by Astronaut Borman.