Descartes and the Origins of "The Matrix" and "Inception"

Hey y'all, I thought I'd do my best to lure in the non-philosophy types in an attempt to help you get your Descartes on.  I'm doing a course on 17th Century philosophy and the first guy we're studying is Descartes.  A couple little facts on the fah-zhah of modern philosophy:  1.  He was primarily interested in the limits of scientific knowledge (he was a scientist) and 2.  while lying sick in bed he devised the xy axis/quadrant system.  Apparently he came up with the idea because he wanted to mathematically locate a fly that was on the ceiling--he was bored (Descartes, that is!).  Third, although there are several conspiracy theories about his death, the most accepted account is that he died of pneumonia because the queen of Sweden made him get up super early every morning to tutor her (he was accustomed to working in bed until noon--I'm following in his footsteps!).  Lastly, but unbeknownst to many, his famous "Meditations" were the origin of "The Matrix" and "Inception".

Preamble

    The structure of Descartes meditations is to begin with the most skeptical position possible and try rebuild our (scientific) knowledge from only what we can know for certain.  In doing my rereading I found it interesting that Descartes makes it clear that his project is specific to scientific knowledge (I don't think I noticed this when I read it in undergrad).  A couple of philoso-facts/philoso-terms.  Descartes was a rationalist which is to say that he thought that we can only acquire "true" knowledge of the external world through internal reflection (to discover fundamental truths) and application of the rules of logic.  In essence, since our senses are untrustworthy, we should instead rely on introspection and reason.  Second, Descartes was a foundationalist--in other words he believed that the structure of all we know is built up from foundational premises or truths.  All knowledge beyond the foundational is derived through rules of logic.

     Meditation 1

The main theme of the first meditation is to employ skepticism to all we know to demonstrate how little we can actually be sure of.  The arguments go a little something like this:

Arg 1 and Method:  As an adult he realized that some of the things that he had believed to be true as a child were in fact false and the edifice of knowledge that had been built upon these believes was subsequently weakened or destroyed.  How can we be sure that there still aren't more undiscovered false beliefs upon which we rely?  Descartes decides it's time to reevaluate everything he knows.  Of course it would be impossible and tiresome to go through piecemeal each belief we hold; instead he decides to examine the foundational beliefs upon which they are all supported.

Arg 2A, The (World) Famous "Dream Argument" (can you find the seed of the blockbuster movies?):  Most of what we believe is knowledge that is derived from the senses.  The senses are known to deceive, so perhaps I should question all beliefs that are acquired through experience.  Of course one would be to maaaaad! maaaaad! I tell you! to actually question that the hands and arms I see with mine own two eyes are not mine own hands and arms...or would they?  Isn't the experience of having hands and arms as we type away on facebook exactly the same as if we were dreaming of typing witty retorts and profile updates?  We have all experienced dreams that while they were happening were indistinguishable from reality.  And yet, I did not make those witty facebook retorts, and I did not make those witty profile updates.  Perhaps I have no hands and arms at all, but in their stead I have long purple tentacles with suction cups....muahahahah!  Or for another totally random example, (just making this up off the top of my head) perhaps it's my job to enter peoples dreams and plant ideas in their minds so they think it's their idea.  Then one day I start dreaming inside dreams...like 4 deep!  And my wife gets confused and thinks she's in a dream but she's not.  Then I don't know if I'm in a dream that's in another dream or in reality either.  Then I spin some top thing and it starts to wobble...

     Ok, settle down.  Perhaps we don't know whether I have hands or tentacles but we can still reason that there are certain simple universal qualities that exist.  Representations of reality are all based on reality, no matter how distorted they are.  Nothing is imagined/dreamed that doesn't exist in some sense.  So, regardless of whether my purple tentacles and round suction cups are from a dream or for realz we can all agree that the color purple exists, and things of corporeal nature have the universal qualities of extension and shape.  So too with quantity and size, duration of existence, and the existence of the space that a body occupies.  Perhaps knowledge that deals with universals is a stable foundation upon which to build.  For example, whether I am dreaming or not, 2+3=5, and a square has 4 sides.

    Note for the following section:  Descartes was a strong Catholic and owning to this and the time in history at which he lived, the notion of no creator god (regardless of temperament) was inconceivable.

     He argues, how do I know that god, who created me, maybe didn't actually create a world, space, time, shape, yet made all these things appear to me as in a dream?  Maybe these universal qualities of things don't actually exist in a physical sense, maybe they are all ideas with which god fills my silly little head.   Another problem with ascertaining the certainty of knowledge he notes is that sometimes people make mistakes.  Sometimes people make arithmatic errors and say the 2+3=6.  How do I know that I am not making mistakes too?  Maybe there's a short circuit in my brain that makes me think squares have 5 sides.

    Some might reply that god is supremely good and so would not deceive us; but the fact that he created us in a way such that we are sometimes deceived indicates that we should not hold this belief to be self evident (I think at this point in history Descartes was taking a big risk even postulating this hypothetical argument.  Then he comes back to rescue himself for the stake).  "Perhaps there may be some who would prefer to deny the existence of so powerful a god [...] let us grant that everything said about god is a fiction.  According to their supposition, then, I have arrived at my present state by fate or chance or a continuous chain of events [...] the less likely they make my original cause, the more likely it is I am so imperfect as to be deceived all the time."  
     Basically, the less power and goodness we ascribe to a creator god, the greater will be our imperfections and the stronger will be Descartes argument for the unreliability of sensory information.  Of course Descartes didn't realize that indeed we did "arrive at [our] present state by a continuous chain of event" but, as I'm learning, neither do a lot of Americans...God not withstanding, I think we can acknowledge Descartes point that sensory information is unreliable.

Arg 2B:  The (World) Famous "Evil Demon Argument" (Fun Activity! Find the seed of the blockbuster movies! Yay!)  Lets pretend that everything you perceive is false.  That a "malicious demon of the utmost cunning has employed all his energies in order to deceive [you]".   Er'thing you see, the sky, the compooter, my purple tentacles, and my herculean muscles, and chiseled features are all "delusions of dreams which he has devised to ensnare [your] judgment".   

     If this were the case, how could you distinguish the demon's manipulation of what you perceive from reality?  In the dream argument your "only" problem is to distinguish between a dream and reality.  Now, Descartes kicks it up a notch.  Pow! Not only are you not in control of what you perceive but the entity putting the perceptions in the "theatre of your mind" is deliberately trying to fool you into believing that what you see is reality.  Maybe the demon makes what you perceive so pleasurable that you don't even want to contemplate whether it's real and then he uses you as a battery to power his world.  But then some people figure it out and give you the choice of a blue or red pill (that's on page 17).  Sound like a few movies you might have watched?  Hmmm?  Hmmmmmmmmmm?  Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm? 

Ok, so it's 3am so I promised myself some sleep.  I'll do the 2nd Meditations next, that of the famous "I think, therefore I am".

Ramblings From "Texas, Yeah Texas" to Carnap

     Texas.  When this state is mentioned few people have neutral impressions.  For people that were born here I'm sure they imagine positive things like friendly people, bbq's, wholesome farm living, and sweet, sweet baby Jesus.  For those of us that grew up far from this mystical land we generally imagine negative things such as rednecks, over-consumption (of both food and petroleum products), religious fundamentalism, chewing tobacco, racism, and bigotry.   In my short time here (4 days) since Friday I have already experienced most items from both lists.  This isn't particularly surprising because like most places, Texas has both the good, the bad, and the ugly.
     Rather than focus on the negative I'd like to share a positive experience I had at a mega-walmart--everything IS bigger in Texas--from which I gained the insight that maybe I can be somewhat of a bigot too (gasp!)
     After an exasperating encounter with the student housing office of U of H which made Japanese bureaucracy seem intelligible, I resigned myself to the fact that I will not be able to move into my residence until Wednesday.  Of course the apt. was empty but don't get me started!  My plan was to go camping in Sam Houston National Forest until Wednesday.  The forest is only about 1.5 hours outside of Houston and I could spend some quality time alone in the wilderness before the madness of studying and TAing started.
    I had my camping gear with me as I had camped on the drive from Vegas to Houston but I needed to pick up some food and more propane and propane accessories.  I also thought that since I'd be camping near a lake I might buy an inflatable kayak if I could find one for a reasonable price.  When driving from Houston to the campground there is a town called Conroe through which you must pass.  I figured I'd stop at the Walmart there, since it was just off the freeway (I'd seen it on the way in) to pick up food and see if Walmart had a boat.

The parking lot is ONLY for Walmart

Walmart in Conroe, TX

Walmart had the paddles but had sold out of the boat.  As I was contemplating what I might do instead I noticed the fishing poles one row over.   I have a vague recollection of having fished when I was ten or something but I am by no means a seasoned fisherman.  "Hmmm..." I thought, "well, I'll be there for 5 days, if I can catch my own dinner it'll save me from having to make food runs and what's better that fresh fish? How hard can fishing be?"
     The guy working the sports and outdoors section was a big ol' Texas country boy.  I told him I was going camping for a few days and wanted to fish, could he advise me on what gear I should buy.  Well, let me tell you, if you think fishing is a simple matter of attaching a hook to a line on a pole you are wrong!  Depending where you are fishing and what you are fishing for you need to select the correct weights, lures, bait, floats, line, pole, cleaning kit, and net.
    Stop for a moment.  I am about to have my moment of insight.  I realize now that I was feeling pretty smug about myself ever since I got accepted into several schools with scholarship.  I don't think that smugness ever reached the point of arrogance but it was smugness nonetheless.  It wouldn't surprise me if most college grads feel a slight superiority over those who never finished, just as I'm sure many who finished high school might feel the same toward those who never finished.  Perhaps it's a normal feeling--those with a higher level of formal education feel, to varying degrees, superior to those below them.  Or maybe I'm just an asshole.
     Anyway, I asked this Texas country boy to help me "gear up" for fishing.  I explained to him that I was a total beginner and didn't have any idea what I was doing.  He was so excited to show me and explain to me all the intricacies of fishing.  He asked me my budget, what type of fish I wanted to catch, gave me technical advice, demonstrated how to tie the knots.  It was plainly obvious that if there were a graduate degree in fishing, this guy would have one.  But he did not take his position of superior knowledge to talk over my head, to condescend, or to show off his encyclopedic knowledge of fishing.  He answered my questions with kindness and with enthusiasm.  He never made me feel small for not knowing what is practically innate to him.  Particularly endearing was after completing every explanation he'd interject, "I love fishing....I really love fishing".
     I drew two main lessons from this exchange.  The first is obvious, that it is much more pleasant to learn from someone who doesn't speak down to you.  The second is that I should be more humble.  Perhaps I have more formal education than some but it does not mean I have more knowledge.  Perhaps the guy at Walmart's depth and breadth of knowledge of fishing far outstrips mine in philosophy--actually, I'm quite sure it does.  The knowledge I pursue just happens to be disseminated primarily in formal institutions.  His--not so much.  It is doubtful that where knowledge is obtained is relevant in ascribing value to it,  provided we are defining knowledge as "true justified belief".
     This brings up a philosophical issue:  Can we ascribe different values to different types of knowledge? Is my knowledge of philosophy more valuable than his knowledge of fishing, or vice versa?  Is an MBA more valuable than an MA? That is to say, is practical knowledge more valuable that theoretical knowledge?
     I'm not sure what the answer is but I think it might have something to do with the type of life one wants to lead and the degree to which that knowledge helps you pursue that life.  He enjoys a life of fishing and knowledge of fishing helps him successfully pursue this life.  I'm trying to pursue a life of a philosophy instructor, obviously studying philosophy helps me achieve success in this aim.
    But are there areas of knowledge that are universally beneficial, and if so, should we not ascribe more value to knowledge that has universal benefit?  I'd like to think that studying some philosophy can enrich everyone's life.  It is not domain specific.  Learning to think critically is an asset no matter what our specific field of interest.  On the other hand, I'm not sure everyone's life will be enriched if they learn the fundamentals of fishing.
    So where does this leave us?  It seems that there certainly are knowledge domains that universally improve our life quality, some practical, some theoretical.  For example, the practical knowledge of how to manage one's money will universally improve the quality of anyone's life.  Turning to theoretical knowledge, understanding something about ethics and concepts of justice, for example, can also universally improve people's lives.  Finally, there is the more specific type of knowledge, such as that which applies to fishing.  It is doubtful that this knowledge will universally enrich people's lives and so in a sense, is not equal to the aforementioned types of knowledge.
    Doh!  This is the problem with philosophy is no matter what I say, there is usually a counter-arguent.  So if I may play devil's advocate to my incoherent ramblings...: "So, what you're saying is we should ascribe value to types of knowledge based on the degree to which they have universal utility.  Can you provide an argument for this naked assumption?  What's wrong with knowledge for knowledge sake? Why does it have to be useful? Why not measure instead how much pleasure the knowledge brings?"
      My reply:  "Don't make me go all Carnap on your ass, cuz you know I will...Let us ascribe value to knowledge based on its fruitfulness in achieving the purpose for which it is intended; that is to say, if a particular area of knowledge is meant to bring about universal pleasure, we should value it to the degree to which it does so.  Conversely, if a branch of knowledge is meant to have utility, e.g. how to maintain basic hygiene, then let us measure it on those terms."
Carnap, I love you!


      Ok, I'm rambling too much.  Time for bed.  Thanks for reading guys and lemmi know what you think about how we should ascribe value to different types of knowledge.

School: The End of the Beginning

     I feel like an entry is overdue but I don't feel like doing a bunch of research for part 3 of the vaccine entries so instead I'll do a little rambling about things that have been on my mind.  As an aside, one reason I haven't written is that I learned a very expensive lesson about computers and computer compartments of backpacks.  
     When putting your backpack on, be sure you have zipped up the computer compartment zipper.  If you don't, your precious laptop will fly out and crash onto the concrete, causing the motherboard to fail.  Then you will need to buy a new computer.  I had been planning to buy an ipad2 for school (cuz all the other kids are doing it).  It seems those plans have been bumped up.  I went ahead and made a small gamble and decided to buy the best ipad2 with all the bells and whistles and forgo buying an actual compooter.  Hopefully it works out.  
     I ordered my ipad2 the last day of March so it should be here in a week.  If it doesn't, I'm fine with that cuz I know that god/the conscious universe is making me wait even longer for a reason and that reason will eventually be revealed to me.   And if it isn't, then I can take comfort in knowing that god works in mysterious ways, and just because things don't make sense to me doesn't mean everything isn't going perfectly according to plan (AND in my favour!).  I warned you this was going to be random!


School: The End of the Beginning (and further proof there is a god/conscious universe)


     In about March 2009 I made the decision to go back to school to pursue my dream of being a community college philosophy instructor.  I spoke to the head of the MA program at UNLV and based on my transcripts, he informally accepted me to the program (so long as I didn't totally mess up my GRE).  In Sept. 2009 I wrote my GRE exam with the intention of starting the program the following year.  Just under a year went by and I was accepted into the program and was about to register for classes.  As you may remember from a previous post, that didn't exactly happen.  
     Budget cuts happened and 5 weeks from the beginning of the program starting, it was shut down.  Instead of waiting a full academic year to reapply to new schools I decided to go to ASU as a general grad student, despite having to pay the exorbitant out of state tuition costs.  It figured it might be a good idea to have some academic records more current than a decade, and if I did ok I could get the all important letters of recommendation so critical to grad school applications.  Despite a rough start, the semester at ASU went ok-- I got respectable grades and the coveted letters of recommendation.
     After my semester at ASU I decided that in order to ensure acceptance into a decent program I'd have to rewrite the GRE, especially now that my brain had been re-awoken from it's ten year slumber.  There is only one thing less fun that studying for an exam: studying for the same exam a second time.  To say studying for the GRE was emotionally and mentally taxing would be like saying eyeball acupuncture tickles (but it's soooo worth it! It will cure blindness!).  
     When I wrote the exam, I learned something interesting about computer based tests.  For those who don't know, the way it works is that the computer program is trying to determine your level.  To do this it adjusts the difficulty of the questions based on previous answers.  If you are consistently answering correctly the computer will adjust the difficulty level upwards, and vice versa.  The upshot of this is that no matter how well you are doing, the questions will always seem difficult.  
     So, paradoxically, the better you do, the more difficult the test will appear and the worse you do, the easier the test will appear.  Because the way our brains works, we will not typically interpret "damn! this question's difficult" as "I'm gonna ace this test!".  So not far into the test I started to panic because the questions seemed way more difficult that the ones in the study guide.  
     At the end of the exam, before you see the score you can opt to have the results erased.  You will not be able to see how you did and the score will not be recorded.  I felt like some of the questions had been so difficult that when this screen was presented to me I was seriously going to choose this option.  I actually had my finger on the button.  The only reason I didn't press it was because I knew I could rewrite in a month and I thought it would be good to know how much more I needed to improve.  
     When my score appeared on the screen, anyone watching me must of thought I was a crazy person.  I think I fist pumped, laughed, and sobbed all at the same time.  I ended up scoring way above my  most conservative best case scenario.  As I walked out of the test centre I just started screaming and howling in the parking lot.  I couldn't stop myself.  And all the way home I blared music and alternated between screaming out my window and crying tears of joy/relief.  For this exam over the winter holiday I had given up spending time with friends and family whom I get to see once a year at best, usually less--and the sacrifice had payed off.  I couldn't stop the emotions coming out of me.  The last time I felt that happy was 2003 in Japan, when after only 6 months of teaching, my dance team was selected to represent Japan in the World Salsa Congress and we hadn't even auditioned.
     So, now I had a "pimpin" GRE score, letters of recommendation, and good current grades to bolster my letters of recommendation.  After all I'd been through I wasn't about to take chances.  So, I applied to 12 grad programs (very expensive...I don't recommend it!).  Anyway, I got accepted at most of them but got offered funding at 3.  When declaring which school you will attend, the deadline is Apr. 15.  The week prior to the deadline only Texas Tech and University of North Florida had offered me funding.  Texas Tech offered slightly better funding and a TAship but the Grad Coordinator a UNF was working very had to get me to commit;  calling me, asking what else they could do to get me to go to them.  
     It was tough.  On the one hand Texas Tech has a slightly stronger program but is in a small, ultra-conservative, right-wing, bible- thumping one-horse (actually one mall) town and I didn't know if I'd be happy living there.  I also felt swayed by UNF's willingness to reach out to me and call me several times personally on my schedule, not his (very rare).  It spoke well for the individual support I'd get as a student.  After agonizing (actutally, it kind of made me crazy)  over the decision for at least a week and changing my mind more times than I'd like to admit I finally settled on Texas Tech.  My reasoning was that the effects of the education will last forever, and I can live just about anywhere short-term if it means better long term pay off.  Special thanks to my friends at ASU for the valuable advice.
     Well, on the 14th, the day before I was supposed to commit to TT I was driving home from my doing my taxes and the phone rang.  It was U of Houston and they wanted to offer me full funding and a TA position.  My response to this poor guy who had called me?  Maniacal laughter.  No joke.  Poor guy.  He calls me up to offer me a position and I don't say a word in response.  Just start laughing.  It's all I could do.  All the agonizing I'd gone through to finally make my decision to go to TT and now I had to consider a 3rd option!
       U of H had been one of my top picks before I'd heard back from anyone.  They are a top 10 MA program and are located in a livable city.  When I regained my senses I told him I was in my car but would go online and look at their program and call him back.  After refreshing my memory of the program's strengths I called him back and explained my situation.  He asked if there was anything they could offer that would make me pick them.  I said if they'd accept all my ASU credits I'd say yes.  The next day he made it happen and I made my choice.  The truth is that I liked the TT program a bit better (more flexibility for course choices) but the difference isn't so great as to be a deal breaker.
    So, here I am about 2 years after my decision to go back to grad school.  Yes.  2 years.  It took 2 years just to get to the point where I can start.  But that's ok because I know god/the conscious universe initiated the budget cuts at UNLV just so I could one day go to U of H where I really belong.  Obviously at U of H I will discover the solution to the world's most perplexing philosophical dilemmas (which I will dutifully post on this blog first), that's why I am being sent there.  One day ye of little faith will understand that everything happens for a reason.  Nothing is random.


A big thank you to all my friends and family who have been so supportive and encouraging while I have struggled along this path.  I could not have made it this far without you all.   Despite what Ayn Rand thinks, no man is an island.  Our successes and failures are tightly causally bound to those around us....and more often than not, the randomness of the world around us.
       

The Vaccine Debate Part 2: With Whom is the Debate and Should We Listen?

The Vaccine Debates Part 2: With Whom Is the Debate?

Intro

     As I've been looking more into the vaccination “debate” (I'm using quotes because amongst scientists and physicians there is no debate) I've discovered a wealth of literature. Because I am far from an expert in biochemistry I will not discuss the individual studies that compile the mountains of positive evidence for vaccines but will instead look at general plausibility of anti-vaccination claims.

Who are the Anit-Vaxers and Should we Listen?

     It might be instructive to take a quick look at who the anti-vaccination people are. Just like any group, there are many subgroups but there are some common traits. Some are suckers for the naturalist fallacy, some are anti-government activists, and some have an affinity for conspiracy theories. Most members of this group have a mistrust of what they call the “medical industrial complex”. I will grant that in the context of the profit based US medical system, there is warrant for healthy skepticism when considering the claims of large for profit drug companies and insurance companies. Where I feel the justification for this skepticism breaks down is when we consider the attitudes toward particular health policies of systems that are not profit driven. Consider that every single country that has some form of nationalized/socialized medicine has a national vaccination program. Coincidence? Not only that, but the WHO (World Health Organization) also recommends vaccines and has mountains of research demonstrating their safety (vs. the risk of not vaccinating).

http://www.who.int/immunization/policy/immunization_tables/en/index.html

     Lets pause for a second and think. I understand that conspiracy theories are exciting but is it really plausible that every scientist that works for every national healthcare plan and every WHO scientist has been bought out by big pharma to act as their shill? Really? I know what you're thinking...how else can you explain the fact that all these scientists churn out year after year of long term studies demonstrating vaccine efficacy? Um....may I humbly suggest that it might be because the research and its conclusions are valid? Is it really possible that big pharma is paying all these scientists to fudge their research? Lets suppose it's true. Where's the smoking gun? By now at least one disgruntled scientist or spouse of a scientist would have spilled the beans. Ah! I forgot. The media's in on in it too and are covering up the story. Right.

     So, lets say you're still not convinced. You poke your finger in my chest and your logical fallacy detector screeches “Argument from authority! Aruga! Aruga!” You are right to point out that an argument from authority is not a good argument but sometime appeal to authority is valid. The argument from authority as a logical fallacy usually only applies when you only appeal to an individual or a small group of “experts” like, say...appealing to an Andrew Wakefield study.

     When there is broad consensus amongst a field of experts, this is not an argument from authority; it is prevailing wisdom. A quick example: if your car has a problem and you take it to a hundred mechanics and 99 of them say there's a problem with the regulator but 1 says the problem is with the alternator, which are you going to get fixed? Add to that example that the other 99 mechanics say the lone mechanic is a hack. Who would you listen to? Please don't say that “well what if the 99 mechanics are being paid by the regulator industrial complex and the 1 mechanic is fighting the good fight”. I might have to hurt you.

     Lets apply the example to something less controversial (than vaccines, not regulators/alternators) like climate change or evolution. 100% of biologists support evolution and all but one or 2 climate science experts support the idea of anthropogenic climate change. Should we listen to theologists when it comes to evolution? Should we give equal weight to the views of the 1 or 2 dissenting climate scientists? Hopefully not.

     To be sure there is disagreement among the experts about interpretation of the data and the details, just as there are matters that are still unsettled. That's why research is ongoing. But none of these experts in their respective fields would deny the main tenants of the overarching theories: That evolution happened/is happening, that there is anthropogenic climate change and that the benefits of vaccines far outweigh the risks of not being vaccinated.

     Ok, so I know what you're thinking. “Science” has been wrong before, and those in the minority view were eventually vindicated. True. Sometimes it happens. But it takes extraordinary evidence to overturn mountains of confirmatory evidence for an overarching theory. And so far that evidence hasn't materialized. As the skeptics say “extraordinary claims demands extraordinary evidence.”

Next post I'll (finally) write about the basic science surrounding the vaccination question)

The Vaccine Debate Part 1: The Legal Aspect of the Feb. 22 Ruling

Preamble  
    Because this blog post is likely to attract new readers to my blog, before I get into the meat of the debate I feel some preamble is in order.  Facebook is a wonderful thing.  It allows us to reconnect and stay in contact with friends to a degree that old skool letter writing simply wouldn't allow.  One interesting derivative of facebook is that we can learn how our own views differ from those of our friends and our friends' friends.  As we progress though life we tend to surround ourselves most closely with people who share our own point of view.  Facebook allows us to observe in real time how our views have changed or are diverging from past peer groups.
     So what's my point?  I guess what I'm getting at is that I think having friends/friends of friends who have divergent views from my own allows me to examine my own beliefs more critically.  For example, politically I have what Americans call a "liberal" bias (in Canada I'd be much closer to the centre) but thanks to facebook I can read articles that my more right leaning friends post.  Having access to these articles allows me to see things from a perspective that I probably might not have otherwise.  Sometimes I discount these countervailing views as malarky but occasionally I will agree with some of the points and modify my position.  The most fruitful reaction is when I respond to the article.  Doing so allows me to clarify my own position to myself and determine whether my position is simply an opinion or whether there are strong arguments and/or evidence which support my position.  Sometimes things get heated but as long as my friends and I stay within boundaries appropriate to our friendship/character the outcome is usually fruitful for the both of us.  Basically, this blog entry the the result of one of those interactions.
       As a caveat, I loves me some sarcasm, it's built into my DNA so I urge you not to take too much offence if I am dismissive of any of your cherished beliefs.  I'll do my best to temper it (Ha!) On the bright side I can take just as well as I can dish it...so give me your best!
     Although I'm but a babe in the woods in academia and I have no specialized knowledge, I would argue that training in philosophy qualifies one quite well in the evaluation of arguments.  The subsequent blog post is about several issues in the vaccine debate.  So, what are my medical credentials you ask?  Well, I'm not a doctor, but I did play one for over 2 years with Chippendales.  If that doesn't convince you of my bonifides, I don't know what will.  Without further ado...


Issue 1:  Government "Protection" of Vaccine Producers


    My good friend Nima posted the following article on his facebook page with a subject line that he knew would bate me (we do this to each other....it's fun!)
http://www.nvic.org/NVIC-Vaccine-News/March-2011/No-Pharma-Liability--No-Vaccine-Mandates-.aspx
 Besides the fact that this article is poorly written with grammatical errors and missing words (see ad hominem attack)  there are so many factual fabrications it reads like fox news (see "ad hominem" again!).  Basically I'm having a hard time deciding where to begin.  Lets try this.  I'll summarize the article, point out the main errors, then give some examples of dishonesty in the article.
    The main points of the articles are as follows:  1. Vaccine producers are protected from civil liability should a vaccine cause injury, 2. a)  'mericans are legally compelled to be vaccinated by government b) and that's a violation of FREEDOM! (chant USA! USA! USA!) 3. Vaccines are baaaaad.


Vaccine Producers are Protected from Civil Liability
      First of all the way this claim is made is disingenuous.  Thoughout the article the claim is made that there is "no liability" and "no accountability" for vaccine producers.  The tacit implication that it is very difficult if not impossible for victims of vaccine side effects to receive compensation.  I commend the writer for not outright lying but his account is misleading.  Here are the actual facts:
1.  In 1986 the US government set up the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVI) to provide no-fault compensation to those claiming to be victims of vaccines.  So, children suffering from what may be side effects of vaccines have an avenue by which they can receive compensation.  The threshold for a successful claim to demonstrate a causal link is very weak and the effects need only manifest themselves within a reasonable time frame after the injection.  It is important to note that the causal link between most vaccines and the purported side effects is weak at best.
     In many cases, for compensation to be awarded there need only be a temporal causal link between symptoms and vaccination, not physiological or biochemical.  Basically just because event B occurred after event A does not mean that event A caused event B.  I will get into the science of that later.  With the NCVI Children are provided medical, rehabilitation, counselling, and educational expenses in the case of a successful claim.  
Assessment:  While it is true that vaccine producers are protected from civil liability, it is not true that victims have no recourse for compensation.  In defence of the article writer, they never outright say this but any uninformed person reading the article could easily draw this conclusion.


     So how did this whole ruling come about?  Well, basically there was a case in which a family from Pennsylvania went to the NCVI claims committee looking for compensation and didn't get it.  The condition--residual seizure disorder--which afflicted the daughter had been removed from the schedule of approved reactions that qualify for compensation .  In other words,  there was no evidence indicating or plausible mechanism for a causal link between the vaccine and that particular condition.  Despite this, the plaintiff argued that the vaccine company had knowledge of a safer vaccine and if they had distributed the newer vaccine their daughter would not have had the reaction.  The family did not accept the ruling of the NCVI and eventually their case made it to the supreme court.
     In order to understand the supreme court ruling we need to look at the wording of the key passage in the 1986 NCVI law:
     No vaccine manufacturer shall be liable in a civil action for damages arising from a vaccine-related injury or death associated with the administration of a vaccine after October 1, 1988, if the injury or death resulted from side effects that were unavoidable even though the vaccine was properly prepared and was accompanied by proper directions and warnings.
The two keys to the case are the phrase "side effects that were unavoidable" and "the vaccine...was accompanied by proper directions and warnings".  Lets look first at the later.  Before a child gets any vaccine it is the law that the parents read and sign a vaccine information statement (VIS):

A VIS must be given with every vaccination, including each dose in a multi-dose series. Each VIS contains a brief description of the disease, as well as the risks and benefits of the vaccine. Each VIS is developed by the CDC and distributed to state and local health departments as well as individual providers.(my italics, thank you wikipedia)

     Basically this amounts to informed consent. The plaintiff wanted to argue that despite the informed consent the vaccine manufacturer knew about a more attenuated vaccine and should have offered it.
The judges ruled that despite this, the informed consent that was for the vaccine at hand, not another version of the vaccine.  Also, despite what the National Vaccine Information Centre NVIC article states, there are state laws that allow for abstention from taking vaccines.  

    So, the family could have refused that vaccine if the known risks which were on the VIS had been unacceptable to them.  That is to say, the family could have declined having the vaccine administered to their daughter if they were concerned about the "side effects that were unavoidable".  (Actually, in the article the NVIC contradicts themselves because in the first part of the article they say that Americans are legally required to get vaccinated, but at the end of the article they ask for donations to continue their support of existing state laws that allow for exemption--go figure).  

    The supreme court noted that if the law were otherwise interpreted it would open the door for very difficult cases.  Here are a couple of analogies I came up with as thought experiments to illustrate the point:  Let say you buy a car the year before they install airbag technology into the model.  You get into an accident and the injuries you sustained could have been prevented if there had been an airbag in the car.  The car company knew about airbag technology and maybe even sold some of your model with airbags in another country (with less stringent testing regulations, for example).  Can you sue the car company?  They knew about a safer modification to the vehicle.   Or lets say that midway production they started adding airbags.  You bought a car from an early production run that didn't have one.  Does the car company now need to pull all non-airbag (safer) cars from the market and junk them?  

    Here's another that maybe isn't so much of an analogy but a similar case.  Lets say you have a headache and decide to take your usual ibuprofen (NSAID) which can cause stomach ulcers with prolonged frequent use.  Meanwhile just 2 days ago that same drug company just concluded a 5 year FDA trial and received FDA approval for a similar drug but the new one is less likely to cause stomach ulcers.  Is the drug company expected to recall all existing stock of ibuprofen and destroy it just because it has produced on innovation that is slightly safer?  I'm not so sure it has this obligation.  

     If we consider these imperfect analogies we can see how it would be difficult for the court to rule in favour of the plaintiff and the difficulties that would arise out of setting such a legal precedent.  The bottom line however is that all this legal stuff is secondary to the science.  The science does not support any causal link between the DTP vaccine and many of the claimed side effects. (Again, I will discuss the science in part 2 which I hope to write over the weekend)

     Anyway, hopefully this fosters some perspicuity on how the ruling came about and why the supreme court ruled the way it did.  One final note.  At this point any careful reader should notice what seems to be a logical inconsistency in my position.  On the one hand I am implying that vaccines are safe but on the other I am saying that there is the NCVI which provides compensation for those experiencing side effects.  If vaccines are so safe why should there be a body which decides on compensation for side effects?  Ah! ha! good question.  I will elaborate on this when I discuss the science of vaccines.

Why Protect Vaccination Producers?

     Although the issues surrounding this particular case are interesting, the more important issue is why the US enacted the NCVI law in 1986 in the first place.  Why should government (once again) protect big bad pharma?  Before I continue I'd like to clarify that I do not think that pharmaceutical companies are particularly ethical actors.  In fact, there are many instances where they have proven to be quite the opposite.  Despite this there are important reasons for which the NCVI law was enacted.

A little background which I have stolen from this article 

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=11127#more-11127

I'll summarize for those of you who are already bored with the topic and don't wish to do any further reading:
In 1982 NBC produced an "expose" of alleged DTP vaccine related injuries.  This began the first major anti-vaccination movement and proliferation of misinformation.  
While in 1979 there was only 1 DTP-related lawsuit, by 1986 there were 255, with a total of over $3 billion sought by claimants. This clearly was not sustainable for the vaccine industry, and in fact manufacturers went out of business. In 1967 there were 26 US manufacturers of vaccines. By 1980 this number had dropped to 15, and by 1986 there were only 3 companies still making vaccines in this country. Vaccine prices skyrocketed, and manufacturers found it difficult to obtain liability insurance.


Basically, the sheer legal costs of defending claims made doing business prohibitive. The alternative was for pharmaceutical companies to stop producing vaccines. I know if I were selling vaccines in that environment I'd close my doors too and stick to selling aspirin.  What rational business person wouldn't?  So, it seems that the CDC and related government agencies were faced with a decision:  offer some protection to vaccine producers, or eliminate the vaccine program all together.  

     Now I know what your thinking.  They should have eliminated the vaccine program.  If people would just think more positive thoughts they wouldn't get sick.  All sickness comes from either negative (quantum?) energy, stress, and poor access to triple rainbows.  I know! But you're preaching to the choir.  All this crap about genetic predispositions, viruses, bacterial infection, different diseases having different aetiologies and pathologies... can all be avoided by simply tapping into the universe's positive energy.  And if you should accidentally unplug yourself from the positive waves of quantum energy, easy solutions are just around the corner.  Got mumps?  Laugh away those bumps....homeopathy will fix it!  Got polio? Just look at my portfolio...super doses of vitamins will have you healthy in no time!  Problem with your spleen?  Easiest thing I've ever seen...Reflexology will do the trick, just massage your foot where it's thick!  I've got hundreds of these folks, but I'll spare you--you get my point.

      I know it sucks to give legal protection to big corporations (and I'm actually being serious here) but I think in this particular instance it is warranted.  

OK folks, what was supposed to be a quick overview of the vaccine issues sprinkled with witty remarks has turned into a full-blown research project.  I have to work over the next few days but over the weekend I'll try to produce a part 2 focusing on the research/science.  Please post your comments and hate mail!

  

Thoughts on "Waiting for Superman"

      I just finished watching "Waiting for Superman" and decided I'd write a couple of my thoughts.  My first thought was "how did I ever survive growing up in the ghettos of Dunbar?" (note for my international readers, that's a middle-class neighbourhood in Vancouver.  It's a joke you see... because it's not a bad neighbourhood, and as the more I explain the joke, the funnier it will get!)

      Actually one of my first thoughts was, how did I manage to avoid all those horrible teachers the film talks about?  I'm sure I had some teachers that weren't spectacular and I was a very average student up until grade 10 when I decided to take things a little more seriously.  Actually, my Dad told me I couldn't play any sports until I showed that I could maintain a "B" average.  I went from a lifetime "C" student to "B" student in a month.  Did my teachers all of a sudden get better?

    I have a thought here but I'm having trouble deciding how to express it...  I guess it's that while I certainly agree with the thesis of the film that great teachers can make a difference, students also need to be self-motivated.  I remember lots of classes where I would walk out of the class (especially math, sometimes physics) and have no clue what we just did for an hour but I'd go home, read the examples in the textbook and do the problem sets, and eventually after some serious mental anguish I'd get it.  Of course sometimes I wouldn't be able to do it and I'd call a classmate for help but more often than not I'd struggle with it until I figured it out.  So, part of what I'm trying to say is that while it's fine and dandy to point the finger at teachers, learning takes effort.  The teacher cannot learn for you.  

     STOP! I just had a revelation:  I'm old.  Ya know how I know?  Cuz in this next paragraph I'm going to bemoan "kids these days".  Seriously, kids these days want everything to come easy.  Everything is too hard.  Boohoo.  It seems everywhere I look, this is the attitude of the times.  Can I say the zeitgeist of the times?  I like that phrase and don't get to use it often enough...It seems the kids want all the success and wealth with none of the sacrifice and hard work.  They only want to do what they like to do when they want to do it.  Ok, I know it's not every kid but I seem to encounter this attitude a lot.

     This kind of leads to my next point about the movie which is they don't ask what are the 20 something other countries' education systems that are out-competing the US doing differently?  Well, as someone who has taught high school kids in Japan I can tell you that the difference does not lie in the quality of the teaching.  In fact, given my experience teaching in Japan, (and I'm sure anyone else who's taught in Japan can back me up on this) if we extend the "it's the teachers' fault hypothesis" to Japan I'd say it's a freakin' miracle Japanese kids can tie their shoelaces.  Oh! Little Johnny can't learn because his teacher doesn't make learning FUN! He doesn't encourage him enough!  Really!?  Try sitting in a Japanese high school class.  Johnny's class will seem like a field trip to Disneyland with all the candy he can eat with his own cheer-leading squad (Mmm...cheerleading squad......)  

      You know why the other countries are out-perfoming US students? As a world renowned expert I will tell you:  1.  The students do their freakin' homework;  2.  Those societies still show some modicum of respect for teachers so when a teacher disciplines a child, the parent backs up the teacher not the student; 3.  It's not "cool" to be a failure and/or ignorant in those countries;  4.  The culture values education (unlike the US where science is chased out of the classrooms in place of religious superstition) 5.  Again, the teachers know that the parents back them 100% so if a kid is being disrespectful/not doing their work the teacher can enforce discipline rather than what happens here, i.e. the parent thinks their kid is perfect and how dare the teacher be "mean" to their child.  6.  The kids are expected to work hard and do well.  7.  The teacher is not expected to be a cheerleader for the kids, praising them for every minor thing they do well.  Here's a wacky idea...you're supposed to do your homework and do well in school--that's the norm!  Why should we praise people for achieving the norm?

    Despite all the reasons why these other countries are out-performing the US, US culture is not going to become like Japan's.  The film makers are correct to say changes need to be made in how education is carried out in the US, especially in the inner cities.  We're going to have to accept that maybe the teachers will have to act as cheerleaders and will have to make leaning "fun".  The fact of the matter is that what works in one culture might not work in another and that current educational policies aren't working.   We (or just me, I'm fine with that) can blame the kids until we're blue in the face but it's actually the adults that failed them long ago.   ...the children! save the children! (I probably shouldn't make light of these things but how can I pass up an opportunity to use a cliche)

     One important idea that emerged from the film was that teachers' unions are a major part of the problem.  This relates back to how I started this post, wondering how it is that I magically by passed all the "lemon" teachers.  It could be that in Canada the education system and socio-economic circumstances are quite different, or at least they are at the 1 elementary and 3 high schools I went to.  I find it hard to believe that the amount of crappy teachers out there is so great as to so greatly negatively effect the level of education.  Were there no crappy teachers in the US in the 1950s, 60s, and 70s when the US was leading the world in education?  

     Also, the amount of education required for someone to be a teacher now is significantly greater than what it was back in the golden age of US education.  Tonnes of research has been carried out on effective methods, which teachers learn as part of teacher training.  So, how can poor teaching be such a problem if teacher now has at least 2 extra years of education specific to teaching methods?  It just doesn't add up.  The film hinted at one possible explanation, which was that the US did so well comparatively because the other nations didn't have education systems to speak of.  Ok, that would make sense but when you compare 1960s US metrics to current US metrics,  the 1960 students performed much better.  Did all the extra teacher training lead to crappier teaching?  Unlikely.

    Getting back to the crappy teacher hypothesis, I felt that there was a compelling argument for at least reducing the facility with which teachers attain tenure and for allowing better performers to be better paid.  To be sure there are problems with changing these things but I think some flexibility on the part of the teachers union might be helpful--if a teacher has been proven to suck definitively he should be fired just like in any other job.  
     Regarding granting tenure to teachers after only 2 years, when compared to what university professors have to go through it seems a bit easy.  A university professor must endure on average 10 years of post secondary education, writing, researching, and publishing articles (for free), and working on committees (for free).  At the end of it all there is not guarantee of tenure.  I do however feel that tenure is important because if someone is going to invest 5 or 6 years of their life getting an education for a career path that pays very little, they deserve a little security.   How else are we going to attract any talent?  Also, it is very easy to imagine a situation in the US and A where a good biology teacher in the South wants to teach evolution but can't because he knows he'll get chased out of town with torches and pitchforks.  
     Furthermore, there will be complications with performance based pay because the demographics of your school have a significant effect on student abilities/behavioural problems/parent support/etc...  Nevertheless, I don't think these problems are irresolvable and remember we are doing it for the children! How can you argue with that?

     All this bickering of educational policy and methodology...tsk tsk.   The solution is sooooooo simple.  Haven't you read "The Power of Now" or "The Secret"?  These kids are failing because they are not willing the universe hard enough to give them "A"s.  Clearly, they and their parents just don't want it badly enough.  It's all their fault.  Those silly inner city kids.  If they just wanted it badly enough the universe would conspire to give them A's.  To quote Hansel, "it's so simple".


Anyway, I'd love to hear what other people think about this...

The Egyptian Revolution

     I love being wrong.  Well, maybe I should qualify that.  I love being wrong when my original beliefs that were pessimistic about humanity turn out to be wrong.  I also like finding out I'm wrong about factual beliefs because then I have the opportunity to correct them...but that's tangential to what I want to focus on--the first type of instance in which I like to be wrong. (Editor's note: that was a very confusing and overly wordy introduction paragraph--let me try again).
     I wanted to say that everybody, unless they've been living in a cave, knows about the on going Arab democratic uprisings, but I'm going to guess that despite living in a cave, even Osama bin Laden knows what's going on.  When I first started to hear about what was happening in Egypt and began following it I honestly didn't think much would come of it.  Happily I was wrong.  Then when it looked like Mubarak was getting the boot for good I was skeptical that this was necessarily a good thing.  Not that democracy is a bad thing (although I'm not convinced it's always a good thing either), but I was concerned about the practical mechanics of how power would be transferred and the possibility of Egypt reverting back to a theocracy.
     Once Mubarak put 2 and 2 together and saw that the likelyhood of his reign continuing indefinitely was about as likely as homeopathy curing--insert your favourite chronic disease here--he offered to hold power over a transitional period.  This was not enough for the Egyptian people: they wanted him and his officials to leave immediately.  I understand the sentiment of the people but I'm still not sure if this is the best approach, before you tell me to go hang out with Glen Beck let me explain why.  


Who's Going To Run the New Government?
     Mubarak and his peeps have been in power for 30 years.  It is quite possible that many of his government officials are corrupt but they also know something about running the various ministries or government branches with which they are charged.  I could very well be wrong about this but if you are kicking out the only people who have any experience running the various government offices, how will the new officials learn how to do their job?  I find it difficult to believe that somebody could just step in as Minister of Finance or Transportation etc. without any prior experience.  Imagine that the masses kicked you and all your coworkers out of your company and then without any guidance or previous experience took over your jobs and company.  How successful would that company be?  Seriously, if you've every been in any sort of management position think about how long it takes to train someone to do something even as simple as work at McDonald's.  And that's with guidance and also occurring within an existing system.
     Although the circumstances are different I think something could be learned from the S.Africa model where Mandela's government retained some of the prior government officials to help with training and so on.  Revolutions are not the typical way that government power transfers occur and there is no "typical" revolution so there is no clear right way to transfer power.  
     In democracies when a government is voted out and a new one voted in there is a transition period so the incoming officials can learn the ropes and also typically some of the members of the new party were already in government as members of the opposition.  None of this applies to what's happening in Egypt.  It is quite clear that the Egyptian people want nothing to do with anyone who held any position of note over the last 30 years and I guess I have some concerns about how people are going to learn to run a country when nobody has any prior experience.   It just seems a bit worrisome from a practical point of view.  Hopefully, I will be proven wrong again!


The (Holy) Spectre of an Islamist Theocracy
     Ok, my first reaction to the early reports of the Egyptian revolution was to be worried about the potential rise of an Islamist state via the Muslim Brotherhood.   It's no secret that I'm a secularist and regard religion as one of the greatest impediments to human progress.  So if you want to accuse me of bias here, I graciously accept it.  Not that anecdotes should carry much weight but let me share one with you to give you an idea of why I am worried about the co-opting of the Egyptian government by fundi Islam:


Back when I was a bright-eyed and bushy-tailed backpacker, I spent about a month backpacking in Egypt.  It was a great experience and I met many wonderful people.  There was however one negative encounter that has always stuck with me.  I was staying in a Cairo youth hostel (actually quite close to Tahir Square) and had made good friends with a group of young Egyptian boxers who were in Cairo for the national boxing championship.  Everyday I'd hang out with them, go watch their matches, watched them pray 5 times a day, and drink tea.  As an aside, Egyptian culture is (obviously) very different from ours and it is common for men to hold hands when walking, so everyday when we'd hang out they'd all compete over who got to hold my hand when we walked down the street.  Thinking about this now makes me laugh when I imagine doing the same with some of my North American and European grappling partners.  It's fine to roll around half naked in each others sweat but holding hands?!  
     But I digress...anyway if I can pull myself away from revelling in the memories of my youth, my point is this:  One evening I was talking to my Egyptian friends about Israel.  One of the guys said if he ever saw a Jew walking down the street he would kill him.  Just like that.  He didn't even try to temper this sentiment and it was said as though this is the natural thing to do.  There was no caveat.  It wasn't even like when people tell a racist joke and quickly look around to see if the anyone in the target group is in earshot.  I asked him, "even if you'd never met him before and he'd done nothing to you?"  Same answer.  Well, at that moment all I could think was, "thank goodness I opted to have that horn-removal surgery".  I think I had told them that I was Christian.  Early in my trip in Egypt I'd learned not to say I didn't have a religion because they don't understand that concept.  The idea of not having a religion is so foreign to them that it fries their internal circuitry and it become much easier (even for an avowed atheist) to say you belong to a particular religion (unless you say you are a Jew, of course).  A little bit of trivia for y'all: in the Middle East your religion is on you ID card.  How 'bout them apples, anti-profilers!


    I rambled a bit but hopefully the reason why I have some misgivings about Islam entering the institutions in Egypt are apparent.  Let me say as a prolepsis that what I am suggesting about the Islamic craziness is not particular to Islam.  Intolerance of infidels is inherent in almost every religion, save perhaps Buddhism (which is arguably not a religion).  I've heard similar statements of blind irrational hate and intolerance from Christians and Jews alike and, sadly, one does not have to look hard to find them in the public sphere...all the more reason to keep religion out of government.
     Lets see if I can get back to some semblance of a coherent discourse...what was I talking about?  Ah! yes! the Muslim Brotherhood.  I found it quite interesting how different branches of the media presented this organization.  Predictably the right wing media resorted to fear mongering.  What was more interesting was how the less ideological media portrayed them.  My primary source of news is NPR and the interviews they had with Brotherhood leaders were very softball.  No hard questions were asked about giving evidence that the Brotherhood had make an ideological break with its violent past or commitment to theocratic rule.  Whenever the interviewer asked such questions the interviewee dismissed these concerns as unjustified, yet the interviewer never challenged any of the replies.  If the interviewer had done a little bit of research there would have been ample grounds to challenge the responses.  I felt like NPR was trying to avoid any accusations of being anti-Islamist in the name of preserving its public image as fair and balanced but this was in fact poor journalism.  If the interviewer had been interviewing a politician who favours cutting education you can bet there would have been some tough questions and responses wouldn't be accepted at face value (i.e. good journalism).  
     If you don't have the time to read the entire article or just don't care here are a couple of facts about the Muslim Brotherhood which I have stolen from an insightful article from the American Humanist website.


http://blog.thehumanist.com/?p=2572&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+thehumanist%2FXNiZ+%28Rant+%26+Reason%29

Excerpt:
The Muslim Brotherhood was founded in 1928, with a credo of “Jihad is our way; and death for the sake of Allah is the highest of our aspirations.” There isn’t the slightest doubt about the Muslim Brotherhood’s agenda today, because it was published for all the world to see in 2007. The model is shamelessly copied from Iran: a council of “senior religious scholars” must be established, with power to overrule any government decision not in accord with Muslim Sharia law. Since Sharia purports to govern every aspect of human existence, the God experts reign supreme; Qutb, the chief architect of the Brotherhood's theology, taught that Sharia is so complete as a legal and moral system that no further legislation is possible. Just last September, the current head of the Brotherhood preached that “the improvement and change that the [Muslim] nation seeks can only be attained through jihad and sacrifice and by raising a jihadi generation that pursues death, just as the enemies pursue life.”


Ok, maybe they're not as moderate as NPR allowed them to make themselves out to be. But it could also very well be that there moderate members and these are the members with which NPR spoke. Very few large organizations have internal ideological purity. So what? Well, at first I thought, "OMG this a terrible threat, Egypt will turn into Iran, the peace treaty with Israel will be over and the Middle East will be even worse off." But then I thought, "like, um...who am I to judge what system people voluntarily submit to?" I suppose if it's what people vote for through legitimate democratic means, then so be it. Americans voted for two terms of Bush, how much worse could the Egyptians do? There are other reasons why I don't think the possibility of a backward Islamist state is much cause for concern:

1. After listening to quite a few interviews with the average Egyptian it seems that degree to which the Muslim Brotherhood holds political power in Egypt is much less than we in the West think.

2. After fighting so hard for democracy it is unlikely that Egyptians will give it all up to an Iranian style "democracy".

3. The style of democracy that emerges in Egypt (and other parts of the Middle East) will not likely look exactly like what we have in the West, nor should it. It needs to be specific to that culture and history. So it's going to have some Islamist elements but from my point of view the US government is just a hop skip and a crusade away from being a theocracy itself. So why be so demanding of absolute secularism from the Egyptians? 
     The important point is that the government will be democratic and to some degree responsive to the demands of the people. In such an environment more enlightened secularist values at least have a chance of emerging while more rigid medieval religious rules (can I add "draconian?" or would that reveal my bias?) can be diminished. Also if the people discover that a reversion the dark ages isn't all it's cracked up to be they can vote the offending government out, and bring in a new one. Democracy doesn't guarantee the best government but at least it gives you a chance to experiment and discard those that don't act in your best interest.


     Well, I need to get ready for work but there so much more I wanted to write about. Lets call this Part 1. I'll conclude by saying again that over the last few weeks I have been happily disabused of some ill founded beliefs. I think especially now, with the support of the international community, a new enlightened era in Egyptian history is dawning. Obviously it's not going to happen over night or perfectly smoothly but in the long run the people of Egypt will be much better off. I would like to apologize to Allah for my initial skepticism toward the revolution. I attribute this attitude to the fact that the only other historical examples of revolutions in the region that I know of are Afghanistan, Iran, and pre-Kadaffi Libya...and they didn't turn out so well for most people. It is unfortunate that in most post-colonial countries the post-revolutionary governments ended up being worse in many respects than colonial rule.


Thank for reading. And a final reminder to Jews: if you plan on visiting Egypt it's worth having your horns removed before going.