When "Belief" Becomes "Delusion" (Part One)

The last couple of weeks I've spent quite a bit of my time arguing with those of the religious persuasion. The arguments have included a variety of topics, including why I consider the "We believe in God" principle of the Glenn Beck 9/12ers to be divisive and unnecessary in the fight for less government and fiscal sanity, the effectiveness of prayer, the existence of Jesus, "God" as a delusion, and even the nature of the "real world". Each culminated, just as they usually do, in either the incredibly weak "it's all about belief/faith" rationalization/surrender or the "agree to disagree" compromise.

(Note: henceforth, I'll use the words "faith" and "belief" interchangeably, since the two are equivalent within the context of this discussion. Also in the context of this discussion, I will be using the following definition of the word Faith: firm belief in something for which there is no proof (i.e. blind faith), and NOT - Faith: complete trust (i.e. contingent faith), which the religilous love to falsely equivocate.)

The common thread I see among each of these arguments? : how "benign belief" (i.e. imagination, open-mindedness) can mutate into "benign delusion" (i.e. dogma, true closed-mindedness), and ultimately, provide the scaffolding for "malignant & destructive delusion" (i.e. flying planes into skyscrapers, undermining public school science classes with creation myths, electing fking morons to the U.S. Presidency)

Now, the simple cognitive act of believing in the possibility of something, i.e. the existence a god, gods, evil alien overlords that populated the earth by dropping souls into volcanoes, or alternate states of reality, is not, in and of itself, delusional. All of us have some degree of imagination, and simply positing the existence of something is harmless...life would be pretty boring if Gene Roddenberry had never imagined the world of Star Trek, Joss Whedon had never believed in the possibility of the Firefly universe (or simply 'Verse, as we Browncoats like to say), or the Wachowski brothers hadn't challenged our notion of "the real world" by positing The Matrix (and subsequently flubbing the sequels). Accepting the possibility of these and other products of the imagination that might be is benign belief. This is using one's imagination. THIS, is open-mindedness.

However, one begins descending into "benign delusion" and true close-mindedness when the "possibility" clause is removed from the notion of benign belief. When one starts actually believing that Lord Xenu populated Earth with(whatever the fk Scientologists believe), The Matrix is actually real, or that unseen deities actually exist and control our fate...again, actual belief without a shred of creditable evidence to support the belief(which is now a truth claim)...one has, by definition, become delusional.

So is the individual's delusion benign, or malignant? The delusion is relatively benign as long as the delusion motivated actions of the individual do not infringe upon the life, liberty, and property of other individuals who do not share the delusion. Building conceptual models of alternate realities, prayer, attending church, abstaining from sex, drugs, and rock n roll...all benign. Unfortunately though, when an otherwise benign delusion begins to be spread and shared amongst groups of individuals, the scaffolding for malignant delusion begins to manifest.

I'll tackle "malignant & destructive delusion" in Part Two of When "Belief" Becomes "Delusion". Right now, I'm hungry.

Random Rant: Preemptive War Muggering, Iraq, and "The Meth Lab Next Door"

So I'm helping man the Tarrant County Libertarian table at the Fort Worth Gun Show last Saturday, when up strolls the inevitable NeoCon Republican ready to educate us on why the libertarian policy of "isolationism" is just flat WRONG and why Uncle Sam was perfectly justified in the mugging of Iraq.

First of all, it's a "non-interventionist" foreign policy, not an "isolationist" policy....there is a HUGE difference between the two. See, Libertarians believe in "National Defense" in it's purist form, the optimal word of the phrase being "defense". If our nation is attacked, we believe in kicking the buh-jesus out of the attackers. We do not, however, subscribe to the notion of "The best defense is a good offense"...that phrase belongs on the football field, not in the State Department.

If libertarians had an "isolationist" policy, we would be against trade with other nations, which would contradict our pro-free market economy positions. Again, we believe in a non-interventionist approach when the military might of the US is concerned. The cost and unintended consequences of U.S. meddling in the middle east has been staggering. A non-interventionist approach would have saved us trillions, not to mention the lives that would NOT have been destroyed as a direct result of said meddling.

Anyway, the NeoCon mentioned above tried to rationalize the mugging of Iraq and preemptive mugging in general by comparing the baddies of the world to a hypothetical meth lab two doors down from your house. The meth lab, like Saddam, is a threat to your life and that of...wait for it...the chilllldren.

First of all, there wouldn't even BE a meth lab two doors down from you, much less one that would be a threat, if we would end this ridiculous and costly "War on Drugs"...but don't get me started on that...I'll save it for another post. Second, this guy's analogy is flawed beyond repair. In his world, it is the responsibily of the Arkansas State Police to eliminate the meth lab next door...you know, the one next door in...BOSTON (go Red Sox!). Which leads to, lastly, IT IS NOT THE JOB OF THE U.S. MILITARY TO POLICE THE FKING WORLD AND "SPREAD DEMOCRACY".

"But Saddam wanted to destroy us!"

Well, so does North Korea, Venezuela, and countless other nations around the world...so why aren't we in North Korea and Venezuela? North Korea has nukes and Kim Jong Il's horrible fashion sense, while Venezuela has the noxious fumes emitted from Hugo's armpits. Said NeoCon didn't have an answer to either one.

"But all the Kurds slaughtered by Saddam...how do we just let that happen?"

The same way we let millions die at the hands of warlords in Africa, gawd knows how many under Kim Jong Il, and countless others killed under the rule of other despots around the globe. The U.S. is not the world police, nor did the founders intend for us to be:

"...it is proper you should understand what I deem the essential principles of our Government, and consequently those which ought to shape its Administration. I will compress them within the narrowest compass they will bear, stating the general principle, but not all its limitations. Equal and exact justice to all men, of whatever state or persuasion, religious or political; peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none."
-- Thomas Jefferson, from his 1801 inagural address.

...THAT dear readers, is the heart and soul of a non-interventionist foreign policy.

The U.S. would be MUCH better off if we'd keep our noses out of other nations affairs. The cost and unintended consequences just aren't worth the price.

So...What the Hell is a "Browncoat"?

I often (well, once or twice) get asked this question by my vast army of loyal readers (one or two), so I'm finally going to 'splain: Simply put, a "Browncoat" is a rabid fan of the late, great, shortlived television show "Firefly" and the movie "Serenity". A Browncoat will tell you without hesitation that Firefly was the greatest TV show...ever. Period.

The show premiered in the Fall of 2002, and died in December 2002 after the knucklehead executives at FOX Television (who didn't like the show in the first place) sabotaged and sunk the show before it had a chance to take flight.

In a nutshell, the show was about nine people aboard a transport spaceship named "Serenity". The setting of the show takes place 500 yrs in the future where we've terraformed and colonized planets and moons in a distant solar system. The central planets are very modernized and "futuristic", while the outer planets are much like the American wild-west of the 19th century. The outer planets had no desire to be under the thumb of "The Alliance", the governing body of the central planets, so there was a war of independence pitting the Alliance against the outer planets, a.k.a. "The Independents", a.k.a. "The Browncoats". Needless to say, the Browncoats were on the losing end of the war. The show picks up six years after the war, following the lives of a former Independent Sergeant named Malcolm Reynolds (played most excellently by Nathan Fillion) and his crew.

But it's not the sci-fi setting that makes the show so wonderful, it's the characters on Serenity, their interactions with each other, and the snarcky dialog... you immediately bond with the characters and feel like "part of the crew".

Anyway, I won't ramble on about the show, here's a link to the Firefly Wiki page if you want to learn more:

http://www.fireflywiki.org/


Needless to say, I highly recommend this series...it's fun, entertaining, and leans very libertarian. You can purchase the complete series and movie "Serenity" on DVD from Amazon.com.



I must warn you though: once you finish the series and movie, you will definitely be craving more and, well, there ain't. (Note: be sure to watch 'em in DVD order, not the screwed up order they were aired by FOX).

Oh, and did I mention: Nathan Fillion f'n rocks. Be sure to watch him Mondays on ABC starring in the new show "Castle"...he's ruttin' hi-larious!

Random Rant: Madonna's Elbonian Kids, "Political" Science, etc.

So I'm persusing CNN.com and notice their latest poll: "Should Madonna be allowed to adopt another Elbonian child?". Now, personally, I think the Madonnas and Brangelinas of the entertainment industry adopt children because it's some kind of weird Hollywood trend...the poor kids are more for show as fashion accessories than anything. I'm willing to bet all of the chidlins will likely end up being raised by an army of nannies once the fad dies out and/or the Mabrangelinas decide to move on to The Next Big Ego Stroking Cause.

All that to say I personally don't like the Elbonian adoption fad, however (back to the CNN poll), I checked "Yes" on the poll. I may not LIKE what Madonna is doing, but she has every RIGHT to adopt as many Elbonians as she pleases. What stunned me was the results of the poll which, at the time, were neck and neck! Roughly 40 something percent of people taking the poll think Madonna should not be allowed to adopt more Elbonian human accessories! ALLOWED?!? Allowed by whom? Why, Big Government, of course. Do these folks really want the Obamessiah & co. dictating whether or not they can adopt? Don't answer that...

"Political" Science
No, not the two courses you took in college. I'm talking about "Science" used to push political agendas. My opinions that second-hand smoke is harmless and that "climate change"(is that what we're calling it now?) is happening regardless of what we pesky humans do are often challenged by people sporting incredulous looks. "But aren't you a science-loving atheist?!?" Yes, as a rule, I put my trust in credible, non-politically motivated science. However, I do not trust politically motivated "science" whose results are exaggerated to the nth degree. The "dangers" of second-hand smoke are a prime example of hysterical, politically motivated "science". I've read some of these "studies" and the ludicrous conditions under which the hapless rats were exposed to. None of these conditions resemble anything close to reality, yet the "results" have worked their way into public opinion and your average schmo on the street will think you insane if said results are questioned.

We are truly a nation of sheep.

Newsflash: You ARE "The People"

So I just finished Fredric Bastiat's masterpiece of socialist repellent, "The Law", which, IMHO is probably the most brilliant treatise on the subject of liberty ever written. If you didn't know better, you'd swear you were reading the work of a 21st century author, not a 19th century economist/political philosopher.

One particular section really hit home with me where he writes about how the socialists of his time were either elitist snobs or contradictory knuckleheads. You see, I’ve had a few run-ins with 21st century socialists, a.k.a. Democrats, who really aren’t that different than their 19th century counterparts. Both share the same condescending attitude that “the people are not capable of governing themselves”. I’ve heard this pillar of socialist wisdom countless times in discussions and from local democratic congressional candidates.

After one of these recent discussions, I got to thinking, “so exactly WHO or WHAT is supposed to govern us then, HAL?” After all, aren’t politicians “people” too? Bastiat takes it a step further, basically saying: “If people aren’t capable of governing themselves, why in the world do people, a.k.a. YOU, person who believes people are incapable of governing themselves, have the right to VOTE”? After all, if you are incapable of governing yourself, why should you be entrusted with the awesome responsibility of electing your representatives?

Bastiat goes on to point out that those that espouse this condescending opinion of mankind naturally do not include themselves in the category of lowly incapables, proving his hypothesis that socialists, or rather, Democrats of both centuries are either elitist snobs or contradictory idiots.

So the next time one of your friendly neighborhood Democrats states that “people are too irresponsible or incapable of governing themselves”, when defending their socialist ideology, pull out your lighter and kindly ask them to hand over their voter registration cards for incineration.

[EDIT] Lest I be accused of being Pro-Anti-Democrat, I must give credit to the Democrats for being open about their elitist mentality. The GOP simply pays lip service to the concept of "government by the people"...they tell us what we want to hear during the elections and promptly start treating us like serfs once in office.

Back From the Abyss

Well I'm back from my interview at Grim Reaper, LLC. Looks like I didn't qualify for the position of Associate Casket Weight...oh well, maybe next time.

Anyway, thanks to everyone who visited the hospital, sent cards, thoughts, etc. my way, I deeply appreciate everything. I'm currently recouping at home and doing dialysis three times a week, hoping the kidneys come back...we shall see.

Once I'm caught up on everything, I shall return with more snarky commentary.

See ya soon,

Browncoat

Just Call Me "D-FENS"

Do you remember the 1993 Michael Douglas movie "Falling Down"? You know, the one where he plays a laid off defense contractor who's fed-up with the state of our country and his life, which leads him to ultimately lose it and go postal on a convenience store after the non-English speaking clerk won't give him change for the pay phone? Well, dear readers, according to my nephew(who is only 3 years my junior), I am that guy.

See, my nephew and I try to go out and have a beer every couple of weeks, just to keep up with each other, something we haven't done too well until last summer. Last week, we get on the subject of politics and the new anti-smoking legislation being proposed by the Republocrat nannies in Austin. Anyone who's been around me for more than five minutes knows this is a hot button for me. And it's not about the smoking(I'm a "small-s" smoker), it's about the loss of liberty and my frustration with the politically mindless proponents of the ever encroaching Nanny-State. I get worked up about our daily loss of liberty, and I'm passionate about the subject.

My nephew, an intelligent, successful guy, is one of these politically mindless proponents of the Nanny-State and Big Government. His attitudes towards liberty, voting, and the role of government in our lives encapsulate all that is wrong with today's voters. He doesn't understand, or, he even admitted, care, about the concept of "unintended consequences". Since HE doesn't like smoking, he's all for smoking bans. Even though I pointed out the endless potential unintended consequences of such bans, he flat out said he doesn't care. He'll "deal with it and adjust when and if he crosses that bridge." "When it comes to government, I'm only concerned with the here and now," says he.

Now, I'll admit, my nephew has a healthy attitude about change. When he has to wait five months for gall bladder surgery at the Clinton Memorial State Hospital, at least he'll have adjusted and accepted the excruciating healthcare delays. Assuming he survives the wait AND survives the surgery, he'll be much more mentally prepared to wait in the ten block long line to receive his monthly soylent green rations from the U.S. Department of Plenty. And admittedly, he'll fare much better than I when the Jefferson Memorial in D.C. is demolished and replaced with the Marx Memorial.

Me, I'll take the horn-rimmed glasses, the crew-cut, and the license plate that reads "D-FENS", thank you.