Asgard

Alas, perhaps it was not meant to be.

Vikings kick ass at:

• Tearing their foes limb from limb.
• Dying heroicly on the battlefield.
• Consuming vast quantities of mead.
• Killing insolent mofos without even thinking twice about it.
• Wenching.
• Pillaging.

But Vikings suck at:

• Stealth missions.
• Being cowardly.
• Fashion shows.
• Etiquette.
• And most pointedly, BLOGGING. 

The Palestinian government is broke and unable to pay its employees because Israel, the United States, and Europe have all cut of aid.

Some have argued that the United States is being hypocritical to punish the Palestinians for pursuing exactly what America has been advocating in the region – democracy. This argument is entirely wrongheaded. America has rightly advocated democracy, and is right to cut off aid to Hamas. The two policies are not contradictory in the least.

The US should congratulate the Palestinian people for their fair elections, and the precedent they have established. That does not mean, however, that the US needs to support Palestinian policies. They made their decision; now they can take responsibility for electing a government dedicated to the annihilation of Israel. It is nobody’s fault but their own their aid is being cut off; while Hamas won because it ran on a social reform platform, everyone knew what else came in the package. A homosexual voting for Bush because of his foreign policy, for example, shouldn’t be surprised when Bush steps on gay rights.

In fact, democracy makes tricky issues like sanctions and foreign aid even more straightforward. It is a much debated question whether or not to impose sanctions on a foreign dictator; on the one hand, you don’t want to support his regime, and on the other hand you don’t want to punish people who had nothing to do with it. When people voluntarily choose leaders with bad policy, it is much more clear-cut.

Nor should this be a lesson for the US to stop advocating democracy. In Egypt, for example, democracy would mean victory for the Muslim Brotherhood. Let them win. These extremist, Islamist governments have no future, and will run themselves into the ground on their own accord, without help from the US. Let them be accountable to their people when they do so, instead of always pushing responsibility for their failings to the West. When they are in power, the public will only buy the “Great Satan” argument for so long before they try something new.

Aside: I do not advocate the neoconservative faith in democracy to the extreme; I do not believe that democracy is the end-all be-all solution to the world’s problems. I think there are actually more important things to concentrate on like property rights and the rule of law, but that doesn’t refute the notion that democracy is an admirable goal.

The stem cell debate is one that often gets intertwined with the debate over abortion, becoming a deliciously sticky topic.

There are pretty much two schools of thought when it comes to the issue of using human embryonic stem cells (ES cells) in research and medical science.

- ES Cells can have, potentially, very significant benefits for patients suffering from a plethora of medical problems from different neuro-degenerative diseases to vital organ failures.  They should be used to further the greater good of humanity.

- ES cells are taken from aborted human fetuses, and it is not ethical to use these tissues in scientific research as they were part of a human life, and should not be experimented with.

I share the former opinion, and see how they could vastly improve the medical world.  I think that banning stem cell research, and even not funding it is tragic, and immoral if they can be harnessed to save and improve countless lives.  It is true that most human ES cells used in research are derived from aborted fetuses, but if these cells were not used by the scientific community then they would be incinerated and thrown into a landfill.  Can society justify wasting such a potentially valuable resource through lack of funding or even legislation banning this research?  I am also a pro-choicer, so I see nothing wrong with the abortions, the ultimate source of human ES cells, being legal.

The $3 billion stem cell initiative (Proposition 71) passed by the voters of California is now in court, being challenged by activist groups.  UCLA’s stem cell research center is among those suffering from a lack of already earmarked funds, and the weak legal arguments put forth by the plaintiffs are just mechanisms to delay what to them is an unpalatable policy, but is in fact legal and was instituted by almost 60% of the voters of the state.  Groups like these, especially in the light of a complete lack of Federal support for stem cell research, just hurt patients who suffer today, and will suffer in the future as it delays forthcoming medical treatments for currently incurable diseases and injuries.

I am interested in how the rest of the Aesir see this issue.

Here are a couple links for those interested:

A good stem cell overview by the NIH
A UCLA law professor’s account of the recent legal battles surrounding Proposition 71

Check out this website.  What is amazing to me is just how similar it is to the “creationist” movement in the United States, and even closer to the sort of thing you see coming out of the religious right; except at least Harun Yahya is man enough that his main motivation in arguing against what he calls Darwinism, but is actually more broadly the entire enlightenment way of thinking, is religion.

There is certainly a war of ideas going on across the world right now, but it secularism has already won; you can tell just by the way people discuss ideas.  I think of it like a spectrum; you have the Islamists in the Arab world who are completely dogmatic, want nothing to do with the secular way of thinking, and have no real understanding of it anyway.  They are a dying breed, will remain on the decline, if for no other reason than their ideas breed poverty and subjugation (trusting any god to boost your economy is just stupid; even if there is a god, I sure hope he doesn’t blindly reward those who worship him instead of those who learn about and understand his world).

Then you have fellows like Harun Yahya in Turkey and the “intelligent design” movement in the US.  While deep down they are motivated by religious ideals, they have entirely adopted secular discourse.  Pay attention to how they make their arguments: they wage their war on the terms dictated by secularists.  They try to appeal to your intellect, and argue that theirs is the more rational choice.  This makes sense to them, because they are believers, but by ceding the battle of how people think, they have already lost the battle over what people think, and that is the more important battle.

I’m not trying to say there is no place for faith.  Perhaps there is sometimes (even if I am not sure what or when that is), and I have a lot more respect for religious people who admit that their ideals and beliefs are based on faith, and don’t try to take over scientific territory.

Welcome to Asgard, where the Norse gods discuss issues and ideas as petty mortals scurry about on Urth, only to join us one day on the eternal battlefield, if their hearts be true and their mettle strong.