 |
| |
|
|
|
Profounder things had also passed. It was a completely secular age. Of the faiths that had existed before the coming of the Overlords, only a form of purified Buddhism -- perhaps the most austere of all religions -- still survived. The creeds that had been based upon miracles and revelations had collapsed utterly. With the rise of education, they had already been slowly dissolving, but for a while the Overlords had taken no sides in the matter. Though Karellen was often asked to express his views on religion, all that he would say was that a man's beliefs were his own affair, so long as they did not interfere with the liberty of others.
Perhaps the old faiths would have lingered for generations yet, had it not been for human curiosity. It was known that the Overlords had access to the past, and more than once historians had appealed to Karellen to settle some ancient controversy. It may have been that he had grown tired of such questions, but it is more likely that he knew perfectly well what the outcome of his generosity would be....
The instrument he handed over on permanent loan to the World History Foundation was nothing more than a television receiver with an elaborate set of controls for determining co-ordinates in time and space. It must have been linked somehow to a far more complex machine, operating on principles that no one could imagine, aboard Karellen's ship. One had merely to adjust the controls, and a window into the past was opened up. Almost the whole of human history for the past five thousand years became accessible in an instant. Earlier than that the machine would not go, and there were baffling blanks all down the ages. They might have had some natural cause, or they might be due to deliberate censorship by the Overlords.
Though it had always been obvious to any rational mind that all the world's religious writings could not be true, the shock was nevertheless profound. Here was a revelation which no one could doubt or deny: here, seen by some unknown magic of Overlord science, were the true beginnings of all the world's great faiths. Most of them were noble and inspiring -- but that was not enough. Within a few days, all mankind's multitudinous messiahs had lost their divinity. Beneath the fierce and passionless light of truth, faiths that had sustained millions for twice a thousand years vanished like morning dew. All the good and all the evil they had wrought were swept suddenly into the past, and could touch the minds of men no more.
Humanity had lost its ancient gods: now it was old enough to have no need for new ones. |
|
| | hide comments | | | |
|
|
|
Presidential debate questions, answered, after a fashion.
1 - Introduction
2 - Questions 1 and 2
3 - Questions 3 and 4
4 - Questions 5 and 6
5 - Questions 7 and 8
6 - Questions 9 and 10
7 - Questions 11 and 12
Question 11: If, despite your best diplomatic efforts, Iran attacks Israel, would you be willing to commit U.S. troops in support and defense of Israel? Or would you wait on approval from the U.N. Security Council?
If we do not have a mutual defense pact (or similar treaty) with Israel, then many of the criteria discussed a few questions ago would come into play. One criterion not mentioned there which would need to be addressed is whether there would be anything left to "support and defend" if Iran attacked Israel. I'm less likely to commit "defensive" troops if the Israelis have already been exterminated. I might, however, be inclined to commit "punitive" troops to a concerted effort of nations.
The United Nations Security Council is, frankly, part of "diplomatic efforts" from my point of view. Should I decide to commit troops to the defense of Israel, I'm unlikely to wait on the approval of the Security Council.
Question 12: What don't you know and how will you learn it?
Way too many things; and one mistake at a time. |
|
| | hide comments | | | |
|
|
|
Presidential debate questions, answered, after a fashion.
1 - Introduction
2 - Questions 1 and 2
3 - Questions 3 and 4
4 - Questions 5 and 6
5 - Questions 7 and 8
6 - Questions 9 and 10
7 - Questions 11 and 12
Question 9: Should the United States respect Pakistani sovereignty and not pursue al Qaeda terrorists who maintain bases there, or should we ignore their borders and pursue our enemies like we did in Cambodia during the Vietnam War? Follow-up: How do you reorganize Afghanistan’s strategy or do you? [Context: British commander said “get it down to a low-level insurgency [and] let the Afghans take it over” and British expert said “what we need is an acceptable dictator”].
That's a good parallel, given the similarity of the enemies under discussion. I'm not a fan of secret wars. That said, remember it's not adverse possession if you have permission of the owner.
Regarding the follow-up, I'm not even sure what the current strategy in Afghanistan and Pakistan is. My knowledge of Pakistan comes from a paper I wrote in law school; my knowledge of Afghanistan from a piece of fiction set in the latter days of the Soviet occupation. The British expert makes a good point about the historical use of "acceptable dictators" and about its efficacy in regions like this where the "country" at issue is a conglomeration of various ethnic and religious factions who don't get along all that well. Part of me can't help but wonder if the solution might lie in division and not unity. Allow each of these ethnic factions the opportunity to establish an independent sovereignty. The result might be a lot of small but peaceful (or do I mean impotent?) nation-states. Whether they would then come together regionally, displaying respect for each other as nations, is another issue.
Question 10: How can we apply pressure to Russia for humanitarian issues in an effective manner without starting another Cold War? Follow-up: Ronald Reagan famously said that the Soviet Union was the evil empire. Do you think that Russia under Vladimir Putin is an evil empire?
The same way we apply pressure to other nations on humanitarian issues. Whether that is effective or not is another issue. I'm not terribly concerned about another Cold War, perhaps because of my naivete, but I think there has been a resurgence of Cold War maneuvering.
Regarding the follow-up, I don't know if Putin's Russia is another evil empire. I suspect, however, it has more in common mentally with the old Soviet Union than it used to. There is a spreading sense of desperation in the world and a big ole nation like Russia can't help but feel it too. |
|
| | | | |
|
|
|
Presidential debate questions, answered, after a fashion.
1 - Introduction
2 - Questions 1 and 2
3 - Questions 3 and 4
4 - Questions 5 and 6
5 - Questions 7 and 8
6 - Questions 9 and 10
7 - Questions 11 and 12
Question 7: Do you believe health care should be treated as a commodity? Follow-up: Is health care in America a privilege, a right, or a responsibility?
The phrase "health care" could mean a number of different things. It could mean what nurses, doctors, and other health practitioners do, that is health care services. It could mean health care insurance. It could refer to the entire health care industry from the med-tech program at a junior college to the largest pharmaceutical company.
For the most part, I'm not inclined to think health care should be a commodity, because at the basic level it is a service, not a product. There are aspects of health care which are "products" -- insurance plans, for example, are more like products than services, and the fruits of pharmacological research are undoubtedly products. But if the focus is on the patient and on the health of the patient, then the whole system must be organized with that in mind. I hope that's a vague enough answer for you.
Regarding the follow-up, the American people do not have an unqualified right to the provision of health care. Nor is it a privilege reserved for only the chosen few. I'm not sure how "responsibility" fits in here, since responsibilities are generally part and parcel of both rights and privileges. (Well, at least in my world.)
Jumping off from the other candidates' answers, I'm not sure there is a responsibility (read: obligation) for employers to provide health care for employees. (There is a vague stirring in the back of my head about a law which says that, yeah, employers of a certain size have to provide some kind of benefits but I'll not pursue that line of thought currently.) Individually-purchased health care insurance/plans are another option. There are certainly problems when individuals interact with large entities (see: Sinclair's "The Jungle", and that contracts case about fine-print warranties whose name I cannot recall) but appropriate regulation could be developed to safeguard the consumer. Of course, lots of folks might opt not to purchase an HCPI of any kind ... and society would have to decide whether to subsidize this irresponsible behavior.
Am I leaning toward socialistic medicine? Hmm....
Question 8: How will all the recent economic stress affect our nation's ability to act as a peacemaker in the world? Follow-up: What is [your] doctrine for use of force [combat troops] that the United States would send when we don't have national security issues at stake?
Of course the recent economic stress affects the nation's ability to act like the world's police force. The better question might be the extent to which it should, but you didn't ask that question.
Regarding the follow-up, my doctrine would consist of an principled evaluation of the situation. There are some fights we just aren't going to get involved in -- at least not as the United States of America acting alone. Some of the principles on which I would base the decision include (in no particular order other than this is what I thought of first) 1) the interests at stake; 2) the efficacy of military intervention; 3) the consequent threat to the nation if we become involved; 4) the current troop commitments; 5) the scope of the problem and its potential for expansion with or without military intervention; 6) the goal of the intervention, specific objectives of the intervention, and the battle plan; 7) the human cost of intervention or non-intervention; 8) the global sentiment regarding the situation; and 9) the rightness of act. |
|
| | | | |
|
|
|
Mom and I went to the Beef & Boards dinner theatre here in Indianapolis on Wednesday noon to see "The Sound of Music." We both dressed up really nice and had a good time. We (deliberately) took the scenic route back, wandering through the White River Greenway. I also went through the Indianapolis Museum of Art/Lilly House grounds and showed Mom what I could of the prettiness therein from the car.
This week and next are "doctor weeks" for Mom. On Monday the 6th, we went to the cardiologist who said Mom's heart looks good. He doesn't want to see her again for a year. And, we both received our flu shots. On Thursday the 9th, we went to Mom's primary care physician because I don't like the direction Mom's diabetes and blood glucose levels are heading. For the most part, I was looking for more information about when she should be taking her insulin and when not and how much and all the dietary stuff. I was right about some things and wrong about others, so it was a good visit. On Monday the 13th, we return to the gastroenterologist for a three-month check-up. And sometime the week after, Mom will see an eye doctor for a diabetic eye exam, and probably need to get new glasses as a result.
In other words, I'm getting Mom all tuned up. ;-)
On a less positive note, I've gained about another ten pounds, which means I've almost doubled my weight in the past ten years. Ironically, the nice outfit I wore to TSOM was one I bought three years, had never worn, and was about three sizes smaller than my current clothing. It fit, except for a bit of tightness in the top.
And speaking of less positive notes, I offered to lead songs at a ladies' gathering this evening. For some reason, I thought I might be able to make use of nearly thirty years of musicality. Ha. I managed to pitch only one of the seven songs appropriately, and actually had someone else lead the last song because I knew I was off. I thought about asking the hostess if I could stick my face in her freezer because I was so embarrassed, but opted for a somewhat-quick get-away instead.
We were also late for our Thursday night Bible study in Mark, partly because of A Dog Issue. And, we had to leave early to make the ladies' gathering, so I felt pretty stupid there too.
I am planning to take a "free" tax prep course (there is a $99 book fee), beginning in a few weeks and lasting eight weeks, so that I could, theoretically, do individual returns during tax season. Next week, I hope to take another step toward becoming an actual ALJ (administrative law judge) and not one just on paper as I have been for the past ten months. And, in about two weeks, I should begin scoring standardized tests again... for maybe three weeks. |
|
| | hide comments | | | |
|
|
