A definition of War

As seen at Thomas Paine's Corner in an article entitled "WAR, PEACE AND ARMS CONTROL IN THE BRONZE AGE"

It is fruitless to discuss War and Peace seriously without definitions of those two terms, which are standardly absent from all works about them. The best operative definition was given by Thomas Hobbes in his 17th Century classic Leviathan:

For WARRE consisteth not in Battel only, or in the act of fighting, but in a tract of time, wherein the Will to contend by Battel is sufficiently known; and there the notion of Time, is to be considered in the nature of Warre, as it is in the Nature of Weather. For as the nature of Foule weather, lyeth not in a Showre or two of rain, but in an inclination thereto of many days together:

So the nature of Warre consisteth not in actual fighting; but in a known disposition thereto during all the time there is no assurance to the contrary.

All other time is PEACE

The “inclination” and “disposition” to war are crystallized and distributed in a war’s ideological foundations, which rationalize, legitimate, motivate and unify “the Will to contend by Battel.”

Ideological armaments are as essential as physical armaments in preparation for and conduct of war.

Without such understanding, international peace and security agreements have been doomed to repeated failure. Especially arms control, which, seeking to control preparations for war without essential understanding of the nature of War and Peace, is fundamentally flawed and has been an historically failed enterprise.

Holiday Madness and Freedom of Speech

It seems that according to the first amendment, that Congress cannot make a law limiting freedom of speech, or establishing a particular church as an official national church.

But the courts in their various decisions have gone in the direction of separating church and state to the degree that traditional simple expressions of religious sentiment cannot be followed through on because somebody will get insulted.

Some people need to get a life. If they go around getting insulted and are super sensitized to being insulted on the basis of a simple expression of religion like Merry Christmas on the Town Hall lawn, they need counseling. I am tired of seeing substitute secular holidays, like those they had in Soviet Russia. Now I'M insulted.

That said, the only way to really get around this is to have another amendment to the constitution that allows for these things.

Here is my offering:

Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion. Free speech in the expression of religious ideals, and the acknowledge of religious holidays shall be permitted in government, and their use in and on government buildings, on currency, in official and unofficial speech, in schools, and in other public displays, shall be permitted as prescribed by Congress, and by the various states, counties, cities, towns, and other similar districts, each for their own natural jurisdiction.

Needs some work, but basically, the intention is that you can have "In God We Trust" on the coins, have Christmas Displays on the town commons if they feel like it, have a chaplain lead a prayer at a baseball game, etc. and people who freak and get insulted by this can get a life mail ordered to themselves from the penguins in antartica.

All I am looking for is a common sense addition to the constitution that will help sort this out, so that local communities can do this without needing an act of Congress to get permission to do something.

Regarding the Argument of Intelligent Design

People have been getting themselves all in a twist over the argument that Intelligent Design is a valid scientific theory. And that Intelligent Design is by implication, a code phrase for "God made it all happen"

It is obvious to those with a scientific background that the definition of the word theory has been grossly twisted and misrepresented to be something less potent and meaningful than it really is.

For example, the theory of gravity, the mathematics of which allows you to calculate the orbit to land a man on the moon, or to aim an artillery shell that lands with precision several miles away, making lunchtime an unpleasant mess for those on the receiving end.

Now that's a theory. It let's you do something.

In any case, it is possible to solve the mess in a way that gives the proponents of Intelligent Design exactly what they say they are looking for, sort of, and at the same time takes away the pudding.

First we give them exactly what they want. But we add things to it.

In the classroom, we have these kind of discussions:

What would be evidence of Intelligent Design? What would be evidence of intelligent Design, such as genetic manipulation by a scientist, vs. the normal structure of DNA? and what is the normal structure of DNA anyhow? Of Genes? Could you have copyright markers inside DNA?

Actual evidence. And we tie this into the ethics of Biology.

(Note that a recent news item reports that 20% of the Human Genome has already been patented, even through they actually did not design the genes, but have only isolated a possible speculated use)

Also, you can mention all the possible angles on who could be the speculated authors in the theory of Intelligent Design.

Do not forget to mention the Flying Saucer people, who are rumored to have manipulated the genetic structure of mankind for their own ends. What would be evidence of all of this at the genetic level ?

As a side note, there are a number of images of something resembling a double helix seen in ancient sumerian art. This would twist the nose of some folks, although, for the purposes of classroom discussion, you can discuss the coincidence as a coincidence, without being heavy handed on the subject.

Somehow, I think that excellent mileage could be gained by taking the idea of Intelligent Design seriously, and exploring ALL of the possibilities that are tied to the subject.