Why Vista?

The Linux Journal has a great piece today on the newest of Microsoft's attempts to get you to buy Vista. I won't ruin the punch line, but the cost for upgrade is estimated in the billions for the European Union. Can you say ouch.

The Crocodiles are Crying

This was read at the Memorial for Steve "The Crocodile Hunter" Irwin on September 20, 2006. He will be missed. Thank you Rupert for putting in words what so many of us felt.

THE CROCODILES ARE CRYING

Endless visions fill my head – this man – as large as life
And instantly my heart mourns for his angels and his wife
Because the way I see Steve Irwin – just put everything aside
It comes back to his family – it comes back to his pride

His animals inclusive – Crikey – light the place with love!
Shine his star with everything he fought to rise above
The crazy-man of Khaki from the day he left the pouch
Living out his dream and in that classic ‘Stevo’ crouch

Exploding forth with character and redefining cheek
It’s one thing to be honoured as a champion unique
It’s one thing to have microphones and spotlight cameras shoved
It’s another to be taken in and genuinely loved

But that was where he had it right – I guess he always knew
From his fathers’ modest reptile park and then Australia Zoo
We cringed at times and shook our heads – but true to natures call
There was something very Irwin in the make up of us all

Yes the more I care to think of it – the more he had it right
If you’re going to make a difference – make it big and make it bright!
Yes - he was a lunatic! Yes - he went head first!
But he made the world feel happy with his energetic burst

A world so large and loyal that it’s hard to comprehend
I doubt we truly count the warmth until life meets an end
To count it now I say a prayer with words of inspiration
May the spotlight shine forever on his dream for conservation


…My daughter broke the news to me – my six year old in tears
It was like she’d just turned old enough to show her honest fears
I tried to make some sense of it but whilst her Dad was trying
His little girl explained it best…she said “The crocodiles are crying”


Their best mate’s up in heaven now – the crocs up there are smiling!
And as sure as flowers, poems and cards and memories are piling
As sure as we’ll continue with the trademarks of his spiel
Of all the tributes worthy – he was rough…but he was real

As sure as ‘Crikey!’ fills the sky
I think we’ll miss ya Steve…goodbye

- RUPERT McCALL 2006.

On defending Christendom

I just read a very interesting (for lack of a better word) article on a site that (no surprise) supports a sometimes radical view of the world. What struck me initially was this:

The most critical question, and it remains an open question, is whether what remains of Christendom will defend itself or simply roll over and die.

While the author may think this is the most critical question, I heartily disagree. A much more critical question is: Is there a continued roll for religion, any religion, in its current form where the strong use it as a tool to dominate and intimidate the weak among the world's population?

I am not a big believer. Like Martin Luther, I see no value in organized religion. It serves me no purpose to go and sit in a building once a week and ask an icon for help that I am myself unable or unwilling to provide. I find little purpose in believing in something because someone tells me that I have to without producing a large degree of tangible evidence. The scientific method has stood the test of time (Aristotle's observations being some of the more well documented proof of this) and the ability to evolve and change ones mind based on new information is something that all humans share. But to take on faith the claptrap that surrounds modern religions is stretching the bounds of credulity.

Another sentence in the article that I have a problem with is this:

It is improbable, to say the least, that any Western political leader will rally Christendom to defend itself.

Is this the job of a political leader? If Christendom is going to defend itself, a point that I would question, as the failure of the First and the Second Crusades pointed out quite strongly some 1000 years ago, it is not the job of a political leader but the Church, the soldier of 'God' to defend it. The problem, however, is that most of the strongest of the soldiers have little power to convince the people in the decision making seats that defending Christendom is actually something worth doing. Now, it can be argued that the Religious Right in the United States is making great strides in dictating to the United States Government how they would like to see things done, but it is clear that the United States is rapidly becoming not only a pocket, isolated from the rest of the world view on this matter but also it is becoming clear within the country that the the goal of religion are not the goals of the American society in general for the very reasons that there is little value seen in defending Christendom.

It can be further argued that many Americans have abandoned all but a few hand selected tenants of the dictates that pass as the Christian religion, choosing those parts that make sense to them and abandoning those that do not. For the most part, the pieces that are selected are those that also tend to survive a strong philosophical examination as well. So the idea that murder is wrong is generally accepted while honoring your father and mother is less well accepted. What is strange about the current trend among those that consider themselves to be staunchly in the fold is the ability to completely ignore direct teachings (the Golden Rule jumps to mind) while misinterpreting others. This then begs the question - Which form of Christendom are you going to defend?

War between culture have been occurring and will continue to occur long after the artificiality's of the state concept have faded into antiquity. Any scholar, whether historian, geographer or military leader will tell you that wars between cultures are not new, so to classify them as a Fourth Generation is simply misleading at best. They will mean as much or as little as the states and the citizens involved in the wars want them to mean. A state that is united can be as powerful or more powerful than any culture. It is when the state does not enjoy the full support of all of its cultures that it begins to have problems. A state that is comprised of a single culture will always be stronger than an agglomeration. Again, this is not new and this is a problem that the United States, despite its rhetoric of being a melting pot is going to have to come to grips with if it is going to continue to exist as a state able to wield influence in the world.

Do Not Block The Way Of Inquiry*

One of the things the Bush administration will be known for is questions. Specifically, the lack of tangible answers to them and the general hostility to the questioner. Asking questions of this administration has been the equivalence of hearsay or a traitorous act. It is "un-American" to question this administration and its actions, even when those very actions lead to yet more difficult questions than the initial question the action was designed to answer and the more intelligent or probing the question, the more traitorous the questioner.

For example, I was taken to task for asking, very early on, where exactly these weapons of mass destruction were, for clearly if they had existed, the US military would have made a show of them and they would be item one in every newspaper in the Western world. As we now know, they never existed. Along those same lines, I have asked, if the United States was so worried about these weapons (and worse) and the "axis of evil," why did they not invade North Korea, which is clearly just as dangerous (I would argue that it is more so)? Which, of course, only begs yet another question, that being, how long can this administration continue to hide behind the facade that this is a war on terrorism and not a land grab for control of oil production? Just today, the President’s advisors admitted that one of their problems is tying the war in Iraq to the war on terrorism. It is a problem because the two are not, cannot and should not every be related to each other.

These questions raise even more questions about the rights of the Citizenry to question the elected leadership and the leadership’s responsibility to answer these questions openly and honestly, instead of reacting defensively. The Bush administration is not the first, nor will it be the last democratic government to be riled by people questioning it. Currently, I am reading a book called Socrates Cafe, a look at returning to, or maybe more correctly, rediscovering the ancient art of asking questions to arrive at a truth. The author says this of the Socratic Method: "[it] examines what common sense is. [It] asks: Does the common sense of our day offer us the greatest potential for self-understanding and human excellence? Or is the prevailing common sense in fact a roadblock to realizing this potential? [SC 19]."

Some would argue, rightly, that it is our responsibility, as citizens, to question our government and what they are doing in our name. So let us all begin asking the questions and see if the answers we receive are acceptable and if the lead to more, and more difficult, questions, we should not be afraid to ask them as well. Some would argue, rightly, that it is our responsibility, as citizens, to question our government and what they are doing in our name. So let us all begin asking the questions and see if the answers we receive are acceptable and if the lead to more and more difficult questions, we should not be afraid to ask them as well.

To that end then, let us ask a fundamental question about the current conflict. Is it a tenable position that troops were and have been deployed to fight terrorism? The argument on the one side might run that "those responsible for acts of terrorism, specifically the destruction of the World Trade Center and the damage to the Pentagon, along with the associated loss of life should be punished." A fair statement to a point, but it can also be argued that those responsible were punished (with a couple of exceptions) because they perished in the act. So, that leads to the question of who is the greater terrorist threat, Al-Qaeda or the government of the United States? Ponder that and begin to ask the questions.

"Often it seems that fear prevents people from asking questions of themselves and others [SC28]." So is it fear that is keeping people from questioning the government about is actions, especially those that seem increasingly illogical or morally or ethically questionable. What sort of moral grounding is there in laying waste to not one but two and possibly three (including the US itself) countries? Even "punishment" seems a bit of a stretch any more, even if the public was willing to accept it initially. Is the public still willing to accept it as a valid reason to keep families apart an in harms way?

Moreover, what I am afraid is happening is that the Republican party and their mouthpieces are becoming more and more like modern day Sophists, those that would complain that the constant probing and questioning is a roadblock to the truth rather than an open pathway. This describes a large amount of the vitriol that is coming out of the mouths of some of the more vocal of the pundits, but even more so, we are seeing that they parading before us a catalog of their “belief systems” and helping us identify our own among them and maybe encouraging us to replace them with something more “up-to-date” while hiding their real agenda in smoke and mirrors terms like maintaining freedom, while removing our rights (Patriot Act) or striving to improve democracy, while violating the laws (wiretapping) or creating out of whole cloth new structures to meet their own needs, while ignoring the existing treaties and rules (Gitmo, military tribunals and secret evidence).

Regrettably, few are willing to stand up and ask some of the basic questions that need to be asked and need to be answered. If we can no longer trust our government to do the right thing, and this current administration is showing time and again that they cannot and should not be trusted to do the right thing, then at what point can we? If the label of subversive and un-American is what is hung around the necks of those who ask the question then so be it, because it should be argued vehemently that there is nothing more American than to question the leaders of the country and demand satisfactory answers, now and always.

*Charles Sanders Peirce as quoted in SC [51]