The question of the uniqueness of life on Earth, and thus the existence of extraterrestrial life, is easily answerable in logical terms. While science needs hard proof in order to validate an hypothesis, one can speculate on the likelihood of the outcome. If one thinks about the scientific arc on issues regarding the uniqueness of planet Earth in respect to everything else in the universe, one can see that the answers have always pointed in one direction, which is away from anthropocentrism.
Anthropocentrism is the belief that the human species and, by extension, anything relating to it (such as planet Earth or the solar system), is always at the center. Historically, this concept can be seen in the now debunked belief that the Earth is at the center of the universe or, on a more metaphysical level, on the idea of man is made in the image of God itself. The history of science has been a history of challenges to the anthropocentric belief, and if one start thinking in those terms, one can logically infer the answer to many of humanity’s unanswered questions.
In anthropocentric terms, life on Earth would have to be unique in the universe. A modified form of anthropocentrism may be able to accept that life could exist somewhere else in the universe as long as the human species continues to sit at the top of the evolutionary pyramid. The problem with this idea is that given the history of rebuttals to the anthropocentric idea, it is likely that neither of these assumptions will turn out to be true. The anthropocentric model, while possible, is one of the least probable.
What is more plausible, and thus probable, is that life is not unique to planet Earth and that there are life forms out there in the universe that are way ahead of humans on the evolutionary scale. Still along those anti-anthropocentric lines, one can easily say that life in the universe should actually turn out to be quite common, and that there is nothing special about it existing on planet Earth. Naturally, science will take some time to answer such questions, but it’s always good to be aware of what the most likely outcome will be as we may not be there to see it happen.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Friday, January 30, 2009
Coconut Sauce
At the end of my weekly grocery shopping at the supermarket, I eyed a cashier with only one customer. As I progressed, I noticed that the customer, a woman, only had one item, and so I happily begun to put my groceries on the conveyer belt. This felt like my lucky day, or so I thought.
As soon as I was done emptying my cart, there seemed to be a problem with the woman ahead of me. She started arguing with the cashier saying that the price of the item she wanted to buy, which later I identified as some kind of coconut sauce, was $6.99 and not the $9.99 that the cashier was telling her to pay. After a brief exchange, the cashier left her station saying that she was going to check the price herself.
The cashier returned with the jar the customer wanted to purchase plus another jar of similar kind. She told the customer that the price was indeed $9.99 and not $6.99 as the customer believed. The woman wouldn't hear it and she kept insisting that she saw the $6.99 price in the aisle where she picked up the jar. At this point, for a reason still unclear to me, the cashier left once more and disappeared in one of the aisles.
The woman was well dressed and sported a nicely tight red coat which reminded me of something one would wear in the '60s. I started wondering why would someone waste so much time arguing over three dollars and I almost approached the woman to offer to pay the difference myself. In fact, while I was waiting in line, three other customers went happily at the adjacent cashier. At first I resisted the temptation to change cashiers because all my groceries were already on the conveyer belt. I figured that by the time I had put all my groceries back in the cart the matter would be resolved.
In the meantime, the customer standing behind me gave up and moved to another line and the temptation to move to another line became stronger and stronger but curiosity about the woman and her coconut sauce had the best of me and I decided to wait. It was then that my patience paid off. The cashier returned from her second trip around the aisles and categorically stated that the jar was indeed $9.99. The woman finally gave up and slid her ATM card in the machine.
It was then that the most surprising thing happened. A few moments after sliding her card the woman walked out of the supermarket without the bagged coconut sauce which was still in front of the cashier on the counter. I looked at the cashier and spoke for the first time, "She left the bag! She walked out and left the bag!". As my instinct was telling me to grab the bag and run after the woman the cashier looked at me and said, "Her card was declined. She didn't even have ten dollars in her account."
She didn't even have ten dollars in her account and that's why she was arguing about the price. I imagined this poor woman trying to get this jar of coconut sauce to make some kind of dessert for her children arguing with the cashier with the hope that, out of pity, the cashier would let her pay $6.99. She didn't want to steal it, even though that's all she had; she just wanted a break. It was then that I wished that I had offered to pay the difference.
As soon as I was done emptying my cart, there seemed to be a problem with the woman ahead of me. She started arguing with the cashier saying that the price of the item she wanted to buy, which later I identified as some kind of coconut sauce, was $6.99 and not the $9.99 that the cashier was telling her to pay. After a brief exchange, the cashier left her station saying that she was going to check the price herself.
The cashier returned with the jar the customer wanted to purchase plus another jar of similar kind. She told the customer that the price was indeed $9.99 and not $6.99 as the customer believed. The woman wouldn't hear it and she kept insisting that she saw the $6.99 price in the aisle where she picked up the jar. At this point, for a reason still unclear to me, the cashier left once more and disappeared in one of the aisles.
The woman was well dressed and sported a nicely tight red coat which reminded me of something one would wear in the '60s. I started wondering why would someone waste so much time arguing over three dollars and I almost approached the woman to offer to pay the difference myself. In fact, while I was waiting in line, three other customers went happily at the adjacent cashier. At first I resisted the temptation to change cashiers because all my groceries were already on the conveyer belt. I figured that by the time I had put all my groceries back in the cart the matter would be resolved.
In the meantime, the customer standing behind me gave up and moved to another line and the temptation to move to another line became stronger and stronger but curiosity about the woman and her coconut sauce had the best of me and I decided to wait. It was then that my patience paid off. The cashier returned from her second trip around the aisles and categorically stated that the jar was indeed $9.99. The woman finally gave up and slid her ATM card in the machine.
It was then that the most surprising thing happened. A few moments after sliding her card the woman walked out of the supermarket without the bagged coconut sauce which was still in front of the cashier on the counter. I looked at the cashier and spoke for the first time, "She left the bag! She walked out and left the bag!". As my instinct was telling me to grab the bag and run after the woman the cashier looked at me and said, "Her card was declined. She didn't even have ten dollars in her account."
She didn't even have ten dollars in her account and that's why she was arguing about the price. I imagined this poor woman trying to get this jar of coconut sauce to make some kind of dessert for her children arguing with the cashier with the hope that, out of pity, the cashier would let her pay $6.99. She didn't want to steal it, even though that's all she had; she just wanted a break. It was then that I wished that I had offered to pay the difference.
Saturday, June 7, 2008
In November, the Choice Is Simple: Empire or Republic.
Forget the party labels, forget the names, forget the issues; this November the choice for the American people is pretty simple and stark: Empire or Republic. That’s right; when the American people go to the polls in November, they will be choosing between the further consolidation of militarism and empire, as exemplified by John McCain and his policies, and the arduous job of trying to reign in the centrifugal forces which have spun the Republic close the point of no return.
If the victory of Barak Obama over Hillary Clinton can be boiled down to one single issue, it is the standing of the two candidates on the decision to go to war in Iraq that has made the crucial difference. In essence, Obama owes his victory to the anti-war movement, whose litmus test has been the 2002 joint resolution that opened the path for George W. Bush to initiate hostilities towards Iraq, and which didn’t waver in the face of the various controversies that Obama faced during the primary season. What this means is that Obama can count on a pretty solid group of voters spanning from the anti-war left to the libertarian Ron Paul right whose common goal is to reign in the most blatant imperial tendencies which have been destabilizing the world and the United States both politically and economically in the last half a century.
It is no secret that today, the military-industrial complex, has become the most powerful special interest group in American society. As a matter of fact, it is very hard to really understand its full weight given the secrecy that surrounds anything that has to do with the military. Neither the people, nor the Congress fully grasp the pervasiveness of what President Dwight Eisenhower described as “the huge industrial and military machinery of defense”. More than forty years after Eisenhower’s farewell address the military-industrial complex has reached the level of a state within the state, with it’s own distinct laws and regulations, accountable to no one but the executive.
With over 3,500,000 U.S. troops and more than 737 military bases spread in more than 130 countries around the world, one could easily say that the United States has been an empire for quite some time, but the choice that the American people face today is still quite fundamental in this regard. For the first time in the more than one hundred years of American empire building, the American people will have a say by electing a candidate that could be held accountable by its anti-empire building base.
The American people, after all, have never reaped the benefits of the American empire with the exception of being able to join the armed forces, now the largest entitlement program on earth, and exchange their free will for steady pay, good housing, free medical benefits, education or, basically, the very things that Republican politicians so assiduously impute as the shortcomings of the European-style democracies. But the bulk of the benefits of empire end up, by design, in the coffers of multinational private defense corporations whose sole purpose, as stated in their charters, is to maximize their profit no matter what the consequences are for the nation and the world.
John McCain is, by all counts, the poster boy for the military-industrial complex and his election will further embolden the Pentagon and possibly seal the fate of the Republic. While it’s true that American foreign policy has been largely indifferent to party affiliation up until the Clinton presidency, the actions of the Bush presidency have finally shed whatever was left of the “good empire” narrative that has permeated American foreign policy discourse since its inception. And it is for this reason that John McCain makes no qualms about the need to continue down the path set by the Bush administration of total disregard of the rule of law both nationally and internationally.
Barak Obama, on the other hand and by virtue of his constituencies, represents that portion of the American electorate that still believes, albeit more and more naively so, that all is not lost; that security and freedom are not antithetical and that to allow for one to trump the other is to admit that the founders of the American Republic were not that smart after all. It will be very hard for Obama to deliver on the hopes of his supporters given how entrenched the military-industrial complex is today, but it is something that must be done if we want to even begin to think of how to allocate and prioritize our resources in a manner that is humane and that can address the most pressing problems our world is facing.
The unofficial nomination of Barak Obama as the candidate of the Democratic party for the U.S. presidency, and the outpouring of international support for this victory are a sure sign that we may be ready for a decisive shift in the way we set our priorities both domestically and internationally. And while the road ahead will be bumpy and full of unexpected twists and turns, a new direction in the way America conducts itself in the world can be set. Ultimately, it is up to Obama to keep faith to his promises, but, if elected, his base will have the important task of holding him accountable so that the hopes for a better and peaceful tomorrow won't be misplaced.
If the victory of Barak Obama over Hillary Clinton can be boiled down to one single issue, it is the standing of the two candidates on the decision to go to war in Iraq that has made the crucial difference. In essence, Obama owes his victory to the anti-war movement, whose litmus test has been the 2002 joint resolution that opened the path for George W. Bush to initiate hostilities towards Iraq, and which didn’t waver in the face of the various controversies that Obama faced during the primary season. What this means is that Obama can count on a pretty solid group of voters spanning from the anti-war left to the libertarian Ron Paul right whose common goal is to reign in the most blatant imperial tendencies which have been destabilizing the world and the United States both politically and economically in the last half a century.
It is no secret that today, the military-industrial complex, has become the most powerful special interest group in American society. As a matter of fact, it is very hard to really understand its full weight given the secrecy that surrounds anything that has to do with the military. Neither the people, nor the Congress fully grasp the pervasiveness of what President Dwight Eisenhower described as “the huge industrial and military machinery of defense”. More than forty years after Eisenhower’s farewell address the military-industrial complex has reached the level of a state within the state, with it’s own distinct laws and regulations, accountable to no one but the executive.
With over 3,500,000 U.S. troops and more than 737 military bases spread in more than 130 countries around the world, one could easily say that the United States has been an empire for quite some time, but the choice that the American people face today is still quite fundamental in this regard. For the first time in the more than one hundred years of American empire building, the American people will have a say by electing a candidate that could be held accountable by its anti-empire building base.
The American people, after all, have never reaped the benefits of the American empire with the exception of being able to join the armed forces, now the largest entitlement program on earth, and exchange their free will for steady pay, good housing, free medical benefits, education or, basically, the very things that Republican politicians so assiduously impute as the shortcomings of the European-style democracies. But the bulk of the benefits of empire end up, by design, in the coffers of multinational private defense corporations whose sole purpose, as stated in their charters, is to maximize their profit no matter what the consequences are for the nation and the world.
John McCain is, by all counts, the poster boy for the military-industrial complex and his election will further embolden the Pentagon and possibly seal the fate of the Republic. While it’s true that American foreign policy has been largely indifferent to party affiliation up until the Clinton presidency, the actions of the Bush presidency have finally shed whatever was left of the “good empire” narrative that has permeated American foreign policy discourse since its inception. And it is for this reason that John McCain makes no qualms about the need to continue down the path set by the Bush administration of total disregard of the rule of law both nationally and internationally.
Barak Obama, on the other hand and by virtue of his constituencies, represents that portion of the American electorate that still believes, albeit more and more naively so, that all is not lost; that security and freedom are not antithetical and that to allow for one to trump the other is to admit that the founders of the American Republic were not that smart after all. It will be very hard for Obama to deliver on the hopes of his supporters given how entrenched the military-industrial complex is today, but it is something that must be done if we want to even begin to think of how to allocate and prioritize our resources in a manner that is humane and that can address the most pressing problems our world is facing.
The unofficial nomination of Barak Obama as the candidate of the Democratic party for the U.S. presidency, and the outpouring of international support for this victory are a sure sign that we may be ready for a decisive shift in the way we set our priorities both domestically and internationally. And while the road ahead will be bumpy and full of unexpected twists and turns, a new direction in the way America conducts itself in the world can be set. Ultimately, it is up to Obama to keep faith to his promises, but, if elected, his base will have the important task of holding him accountable so that the hopes for a better and peaceful tomorrow won't be misplaced.
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
The End of the Political Religious Right
Last week’s rejection by John McCain of two of his most coveted religious endorsement is an example of the unintended consequences of the conservative smear machine. With Fox News at its helm, the conservative smear machine pounded on the relationship between Rev. Wright and Obama until it practically became the channel's only newsworthy item. Little did they know that the more they hammered, the more McCain’s endorsements by the religious right would also come under scrutiny by the other cable news channels.
Back in 2000, the religious right had shunned Senator John McCain by rallying behind George W. Bush thus sealing the nomination in his favor. This year, it was clear once again that the religious right preferred Mike Huckabee over McCain, and once McCain became the presumptive nominee he was faced with the possibility that the religious right could desert him in November. Because of its inherent dogmatism, the religious right is not prone to support the “lesser of two evils” in a general election, and it is with this understanding that John McCain actively sough and got the endorsement of two of their most radical preachers: John Hagee and Rod Parsley.
McCain’s lovefest with the religious right was short lived and the relationship turned sour once more after Hagee’s and Parsley’s outrageous statements came under media scrutiny in the aftermath of the Rev. Wright hoopla. Once it was clear that the endorsements of these two preachers were becoming more and more a liability, John McCain had no choice but to rejected them. Unfortunately for McCain, by seeking and then rejecting Hagee’s and Parsley’s endorsements he has sent a clear signal to the political religious right that as much as he needs their support he’s not one of them.
Today, after having gone full circle, John McCain has managed to alienate one of the most important Republican constituencies. But the consequences of his rejection of the endorsements of Hagee and Parsley could go far beyond this election cycle. The fact that any word uttered by a preacher associated with a political candidate has now become a matter of legitimate media scrutiny can only spell disaster for the religious right. Preachers in the vein of Hagee and Parsley are no fans of compassion or inclusiveness and thus they will be wary of endorsing politicians for fear of being exposed for the bigots they are. They will also steer clear from endorsing candidates who seek their support only for political reasons for fear of being rejected at a later date.
Republican candidates will also be very careful before they seek the endorsement of controversial religious figures. In the age of You Tube, there could always be someone who is holding onto something controversial to be released at a later time. All this to say that the extent of the blowback from the ill advised conservative smear campaign of Rev. Wright might have turned what used to be a highly coveted prize for Republicans into a political liability.
The failure of the Republican smear machine to foresee the unintended consequences of their campaign against Rev. Wright says a lot about the short sidedness of the religious right which is in turn exemplified by the failed policies of George W. Bush. Galvanized from seizing the White House for two elections in a row, preachers such as Hagee, Parsley and Falwell had become more outspoken with the belief that their old testament rhetoric was ready for prime time. Unfortunately for them, the vast majority of the American people have not bought into their Manichean fervor as seen by the dismal approval rating of George W. Bush.
The unintended media spotlight that the Rev. Wright controversy has shone on John Hagee and Rod Parsley has forced them to retreat from the political arena and find refuge in the shadows where they had been relegated before the election of George W. Bush. And if these events can be of any indication, it may very well be the beginning of the end of the political religious right.
Back in 2000, the religious right had shunned Senator John McCain by rallying behind George W. Bush thus sealing the nomination in his favor. This year, it was clear once again that the religious right preferred Mike Huckabee over McCain, and once McCain became the presumptive nominee he was faced with the possibility that the religious right could desert him in November. Because of its inherent dogmatism, the religious right is not prone to support the “lesser of two evils” in a general election, and it is with this understanding that John McCain actively sough and got the endorsement of two of their most radical preachers: John Hagee and Rod Parsley.
McCain’s lovefest with the religious right was short lived and the relationship turned sour once more after Hagee’s and Parsley’s outrageous statements came under media scrutiny in the aftermath of the Rev. Wright hoopla. Once it was clear that the endorsements of these two preachers were becoming more and more a liability, John McCain had no choice but to rejected them. Unfortunately for McCain, by seeking and then rejecting Hagee’s and Parsley’s endorsements he has sent a clear signal to the political religious right that as much as he needs their support he’s not one of them.
Today, after having gone full circle, John McCain has managed to alienate one of the most important Republican constituencies. But the consequences of his rejection of the endorsements of Hagee and Parsley could go far beyond this election cycle. The fact that any word uttered by a preacher associated with a political candidate has now become a matter of legitimate media scrutiny can only spell disaster for the religious right. Preachers in the vein of Hagee and Parsley are no fans of compassion or inclusiveness and thus they will be wary of endorsing politicians for fear of being exposed for the bigots they are. They will also steer clear from endorsing candidates who seek their support only for political reasons for fear of being rejected at a later date.
Republican candidates will also be very careful before they seek the endorsement of controversial religious figures. In the age of You Tube, there could always be someone who is holding onto something controversial to be released at a later time. All this to say that the extent of the blowback from the ill advised conservative smear campaign of Rev. Wright might have turned what used to be a highly coveted prize for Republicans into a political liability.
The failure of the Republican smear machine to foresee the unintended consequences of their campaign against Rev. Wright says a lot about the short sidedness of the religious right which is in turn exemplified by the failed policies of George W. Bush. Galvanized from seizing the White House for two elections in a row, preachers such as Hagee, Parsley and Falwell had become more outspoken with the belief that their old testament rhetoric was ready for prime time. Unfortunately for them, the vast majority of the American people have not bought into their Manichean fervor as seen by the dismal approval rating of George W. Bush.
The unintended media spotlight that the Rev. Wright controversy has shone on John Hagee and Rod Parsley has forced them to retreat from the political arena and find refuge in the shadows where they had been relegated before the election of George W. Bush. And if these events can be of any indication, it may very well be the beginning of the end of the political religious right.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Hillary Clinton: the Bicycle and Video Game Thief
I’ve been forcing myself to give Hillary Clinton the benefit of the doubt but after her victory speech in Kentucky I am afraid my patience has run out. Let me start by making one thing absolutely clear: the only way Hillary Clinton could even think about winning the nomination is to get the delegations of Florida and Michigan seated as is and to take the fight to the Convention. Her claim to the popular vote is simply bogus, since we don’t know how many people voted in many caucus states, and that’s all she’s got.
The first thing that struck me about Clinton’s hubris is what she said in regard to the number of delegates needed to win the nomination: “Neither Senator Obama nor I has won the 2,210 delegates required to secure the nomination.” Required by whom exactly? Until the Democratic Rules & Bylaws Committee changes the rules on May 31st, the official DNC delegate number requirement is 2,025. Under exactly what authority is she making this claim? Nobody's but her own.
Clinton doesn’t stand a chance at winning the nomination. She and her supporters claim that there is still a possibility in the mathematical realm. Of course there is, but there is a difference between “can” and “will” (a nuance that also applies to her campaign slogan). This is how people are enticed to play the lottery: “you never know.” Yes, you do know. You can win, but you won’t because the chances of victory are so infinitesimal that they are not even worth considering. And this brings me to the second thing that struck me from her speech last night.
If Hillary Clinton knows (as she does) that she won’t win the nomination, why is she still running? Why is she misleading her supporters saying that she can win when she knows she won’t? Why does she continue to ask for money? What are her aims? No one knows but her. But there is one thing I do know: Hillary Clinton should stop bragging about “Dalton Hatfield, the 11-year-old from Kentucky who sold his bike and his video games to raise money to support [her] campaign.”
Dalton Hatfield is just one kid, and I applaud his commitment to the Clinton campaign, but does he know that Clinton won’t win? Right, not can’t, but won’t. Did his parents tell him that? Did Hillary Clinton tell him that? Of course not. And how many kids like Dalton are going to be pushed to emulate him and donate their bikes and video games to Clinton? How many single mothers will be compelled to donate money to her campaign instead of putting food on the table under the illusion that their candidate could still win?
Clinton should be straight with her voters and tell them the truth, instead of continuing to ask kids like Dalton to give up their toys for the lost cause of a candidate whose net worth is over 100 million dollars. And if people decide to keep giving her money after that, that’s their prerogative. What will she do next, ask retired people for their social security checks? There is something very wrong and immoral about this, and the only logical explanation I can think of, is that Hillary Clinton is simply a petty bicycle and video game thief.
The first thing that struck me about Clinton’s hubris is what she said in regard to the number of delegates needed to win the nomination: “Neither Senator Obama nor I has won the 2,210 delegates required to secure the nomination.” Required by whom exactly? Until the Democratic Rules & Bylaws Committee changes the rules on May 31st, the official DNC delegate number requirement is 2,025. Under exactly what authority is she making this claim? Nobody's but her own.
Clinton doesn’t stand a chance at winning the nomination. She and her supporters claim that there is still a possibility in the mathematical realm. Of course there is, but there is a difference between “can” and “will” (a nuance that also applies to her campaign slogan). This is how people are enticed to play the lottery: “you never know.” Yes, you do know. You can win, but you won’t because the chances of victory are so infinitesimal that they are not even worth considering. And this brings me to the second thing that struck me from her speech last night.
If Hillary Clinton knows (as she does) that she won’t win the nomination, why is she still running? Why is she misleading her supporters saying that she can win when she knows she won’t? Why does she continue to ask for money? What are her aims? No one knows but her. But there is one thing I do know: Hillary Clinton should stop bragging about “Dalton Hatfield, the 11-year-old from Kentucky who sold his bike and his video games to raise money to support [her] campaign.”
Dalton Hatfield is just one kid, and I applaud his commitment to the Clinton campaign, but does he know that Clinton won’t win? Right, not can’t, but won’t. Did his parents tell him that? Did Hillary Clinton tell him that? Of course not. And how many kids like Dalton are going to be pushed to emulate him and donate their bikes and video games to Clinton? How many single mothers will be compelled to donate money to her campaign instead of putting food on the table under the illusion that their candidate could still win?
Clinton should be straight with her voters and tell them the truth, instead of continuing to ask kids like Dalton to give up their toys for the lost cause of a candidate whose net worth is over 100 million dollars. And if people decide to keep giving her money after that, that’s their prerogative. What will she do next, ask retired people for their social security checks? There is something very wrong and immoral about this, and the only logical explanation I can think of, is that Hillary Clinton is simply a petty bicycle and video game thief.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)