Thursday, May 30, 2013

Abdullah Mohammed Daoud

Saudi Sheik, Abdullah M. Daoud, claimes twenty six percent of Saudi children between the ages of 6 and 10 were victims of child abuse. Shocking number, isn't it? He proposed a fatwa that babies and children should be veiled right out of the hospital. I know - lunacy, right?
First, let's try to figure out where did he get that numbers. Saudi Arabia does not report incidences of rape, molestation and other acts of violence to the UN, let alone to their own people. Islamic countries like to pretend their crime rates are very low, and Islam gets credit for those low crime rates. So the statistics are coming from where?
I have heard Saudi's also claim that most American women do not even know who the father of their babies are. Where do they get that fact from? Oh...that's right... the same place Daoud got his facts. These people think that the entire world is stupid, and completely unaware that the make up their own "statistics" according to whatever propaganda they are pushing at the moment. 

I do not doubt that children are molested and abused in Saudi Arabia. However, I think that their rates of child abuse is relatively on par with the rest of planet earth. 
"Sheikh Mohammad al-Jzlana, a former Saudi judge and Islamic cleric told Al-Arabiya that such a fatwa could only come from a pervert. He added that people like Abdullah Daoud were denigrating to Islam and Shariah and made Muslims look bad. He also said that he felt sad he saw families walking around with a veiled baby, describing that as injustice to children."
I have to ask myself, is his fatwa really denigrating to Islam? Islam has done a very good job of denigrating itself. Islam does not need Daoud's help looking ridiculous. 
His entire fatwa is based upon the idea that if a baby is in a veil, some pervert will not be tempted to molest it. Daoud clearly has no real understanding how the mind of a pedophile works. A pedophile will usually have access to a child regardless if the child is in a veil or not. A pedophile is usually a trusted family friend or relative. The baby-burka will do nothing to protect the child. 
The entire idea that a veil prevents rape in the first place is beyond my understanding. Women should be free to wear what ever they want to wear, drink what ever they want to drink, pass out where ever they want to pass out without having to worry about a man forcing himself on her. These people think that men are primitive beasts that cannot help themselves when they see someone they want to penetrate, be it a woman or an infant. If I was a man - I would be insulted. 
The answer to this problem is not with focusing on the victim, covering the victim, or blaming the victim. The answer to this lives in focusing the entire conversation on the perpetrator. 
For more reading, check out Les Cinq Fatwa Plus Idiots 

Monday, May 27, 2013

The Real Naomi

I usually do not like to write about myself. Once upon a time I wrote diaries, but found that people cannot help but snoop. I have never met a single person in my life, who know I had a diary, and did not violate my privacy. Diaries are not for me anymore.

I use this blog to exercise my first amendment rights.  I write philosophy, I write drama, and often times, there is no censor between my brain and the pen. I say what I really think, and, I like to say the things I know other people are thinking but too kind to say themselves.

So, for a change, lets talk about me. In an interview on 60 minutes, Angelina Jolie said something that resonates with me. She was talking about how she had too many close calls in her life, took things too far and really should not be here. I think she was a heroin addict at one point in her life. I do not relate to drug addiction, with one exception. I cook with wine, and sometimes, I even add it to the food. (Ta Da!) In all seriousness, I do not relate to addiction but I do relate to her feelings about pushing things too far.

I identify with Angelina - To my detriment, I stayed at the freak show just a little too long.

Sunday, May 26, 2013

Congratulations Mississippi - you are moving up in the world

Congratulations Mississippi! According to recent US studies, you have moved up to the Second fattest state in the Union.

Friday, May 24, 2013

The Michael Lindsay Brief

On the twenty-seventh day of July, 2018 Mike Lindsey was at his home of Pearl, Rankin County Mississippi. 

According to the police report made by officer Hugh Johnson, David Knapp, a 261 pound male, 32 years old came to Michael's home armed with beer bottles. Knapp was Michael's neighbor, accompanied by his girlfriend Shannon Few and another neighbor's son, Steven Booth.He banged on the Defendants door, calling him, shouting "I am going to kick the mother fucker's ass" to. He called Mike Lindsey to come outside. 

Michael came outside. From this point on, I do not know what the facts are. I do not know what happened, who struck who first, what was said or what the fight was about. What I do know is that David Knapp broke one of the bottles over the Michaels head, and started stabbing him in the face with the broken bottle. 

After Knapp gravely assaulted Lindsay, Lindsay begged someone to call 911. His roomate Reggie Tisdale refused to call 911, according to a witness, because he did not want anyone to go to jail. 

The Defendant Lindsay went into his home to retrieve a phone to call 911. Bleeding, and unable to find his phone, he knew that he had to get medical attention.

Lindsay grabbed a kitchen knife, and went back outside. Lindsay thought Knapp attacked his roommate as well. He was injured pretty badly at this point, so I do not know how clear Lindsay's thinking was at the time. The fight started anew. Again, I do not know who assaulted who first this time around. Lindsay stabbed Knapp one single time in the side. Knapp did not survive his injuries, he died soon after. 

Knapp was much younger, larger and stronger than Lindsay. The altercation happened outside, and still on Lindsay's property which means, pursuant M.C.A. § 97-3-15.  Lindsay had the right to stand his ground. Lindsay had no duty to retreat. 

I learned of this case from Bill Windsor's Documentary Film, Lawless America. I was told, that these images of Lindsay stabbed, beaten and bloody were taken by the police. 

The Prosecution hid these images. They were not released, the jury never saw them, and Lindsay was convicted of manslaughter. He is now serving a twenty year prison sentence. 

The State's position is that Lindsay should have stayed in his home. He should not have come back onto the patio to fight the assailant. Self defense means that a person should use just enough force, and no more than necessary, to protect themselves from a life threatening situation. The laws on self defense vary from one state to another. You are allowed to use reasonable physical force to protect yourself from imminent physical injury.  You can only use that physical force to stop the threat of harm. 

From the legal perspective, when Lindsay was in the house, he was not in imminent danger anymore. Some states, like Mississippi, have Castle laws. These laws don't require you to retreat if you're in your home and an intruder threatens serious bodily injury or death. You're allowed to use deadly force to "protect your castle."

Lindsay's property (house, patio,front yard, driveway) are all his Castle. It follows, that he should not have been expected to retreat. (an argument never presented to the jury) Moreover, he had reasonable fear that Knapp would harm his roommate. 

What we know about Knapp is that he was a big man, a convicted felon and already assaulted Lindsay. One stab wound in the side, is not enough to tell me that Lindsay desired Knapp's death. He wanted to disable Knapp, preventing Knapp, who was still on his property, from causing further harm to himself or his roommate. 
Michael Lindsay Bottle Attack

What bothers me about this case is that the jury did not see Lindsay's photographs, and did not consider the doctrine that Lindsay had the right to stand his ground. Personally - I would have stayed in the house. But, when your roommate and lifelong friend is in the altercation as well, I might have reacted the same way Lindsay did. I am a very non-violent person, but when loved ones are involved it does change things. 

Lets juxtapose this case with a similar one from Oklahoma. In 2009, pharmacist Jerome Ersland was working at the store he owned, Reliable Pharmacy when a few teenagers came in to rob him. Ersland pulled out a gun and shot the 16 year old Antwun Parker in the head.

Ersland left the store looking for the other kids. He could not find them, so he returned to the store. Parker was laying on the floor. Jerome Ersland went behind the counter, grabbed another gun, and shot Parker a few more times.

Jerome Ersland thought that he would get a manslaughter charge. The jury did not see it that way, they convicted him of murder.

I have never had a teenager hold a gun to my head, but I can only imagine how frightening it must be. This leads me to wonder whether fear motivates people to take things too far. Lindsay left the 'safety' of his house, stabbing his attacker because he was afraid. Ersland's body was raging with adrenaline after several kids try to rob him. It is easy to understand.

I found the following YT video discussing the case. I have to admit, I completely agree with her argument on this Ersland case.

Wednesday, May 22, 2013

Setting the Record Straight about Elliott Hulse

I was rather shocked at the number of views Elliott Hulse is a Meat Head, actually got. I wanted to take the time to set the record straight about a few things.

I changed the comment policy on this blog requiring all comments to be posted by verified blogger users. I took this decision because one particular person, known in my private life was publishing information about my family on this blog, and other social networking sites. I want to set the record straight that Elliott never published anything about my family online. I know who the person is, it is not him, so lets stop the rumors right now.

That being said: Feel free to post any comment you wish here: love me or hate me - all comments are approved.

A lot of people have been saying a lot of things, good and bad.  Some people are not getting my motivation for attacking Elliott, therefore, I am going to reiterate it is simpler terms:

  •  I was unaware he said anything negative about women, or expressed any misogynist opinions. 
  • My issue with Elliot is that he made a video calling college students a bunch of "obedient sheep" whom the less educated should employ and then treat the college grad like, what he calls "good little boys and girls who will do exactly what you tell them to do". 
  •  Anti-intellectualism is profoundly harmful to culture, progress, and human development. As such - I think that Elliot misused his platform, and is spreading ideas that are harmful to young males. 
  • Young men are the most affected by anti-intellectualism, they are more likely to drop out, join the army, and never graduate from a four year University. 

I harshly criticized Elliot because  his opinions are harmful to boys and men.  Boys and young men should not be told they are obedient little sheep for getting a college education. Male are a valuable  irreplaceable element of our workforce. They are the diverse, creative thinkers and innovators we need to compete with other countries. If boys and men stop going to college, our economy is royally screwed. University education cannot be self-taught, and it cannot be done online. 

 I care about boys and men, and have expressed in previous posts that I want things to improve for them. Any person who cares about boys and men, will not spread anti-intellectualism in groups matriculated by predominantly boys and young men - like weight lifting groups.

There are some times in life when a person like me has to turn into a royal bitch, and do something really mean to another person, to teach them a good, hard lesson.  

From the look of things, I succeeded at my task.

Monday, May 20, 2013

Aurinigate :Davis MJ Aurini: Caught With His Pants Down



Far be it for me to pass up on a good piece of YouTube Drama, especially when it concerns to that gynophobic monster, Davis Aurini. Normally, I would not write about a person's private life. Nor would I include photographs. In this case, these people decided to make their private life public. They chose to publish YouTube Videos and Blogs. Aurini invited other's into this mess when he advertised it online. Therefore, I am going to treat this in the same way I will treat any celebrity break-up, with one exception, photos of minor children will be blurred.

Spokane is the Sphincter of Washington State

Economically, western Washington State carries eastern Washington State. If it was not for the people in the West, the people in the east would be in an even worse economic situation than they are now. Taxes from the West are funneled to the East. I certainly do not have a problem with that. People cannot help where they were born. What we can do - is control what information goes into our brains.

Spokane Washington is known for being a red-neck, bible thumping, anti-government haven. So why exactly is Spokane the asshole of Washington State?

Western Washington is better than Eastern Washington for many reasons. West of the mountains we have better industry, more innovation, and the life requires that we deal with people from around the globe. East of the mountains, it is all about them - their families, their communities, their people, and the little bubble that they like to live in. They lack economic diversity, and anyone who knows anything about economics knows that we must have economic diversity in order for any society to sustain itself. They seem to lack cultural awareness and a thriving higher education system.

But, then again, with the number of militias over there it would not surprise me if many people in that area think that higher education is a complete waste of time. Anti-intellectualism thrives in these communities.

In Spokane, the public school system is the largest employer. Where does the money come from to fund their public school system? You guessed it, the taxes we pay in the West. They just do not make enough money in that area to sustain themselves. They must rely on the people West of the mountains to carry them.

It never ceases to amaze me how the very people who profit the most from charity like to bitch about charity the most. The tea baggers like to say "give me my money back." Dude - if that were the case, these people would be living in a hole in the ground. How about they give US our money back!!!!!

Spokane people have scared the crap out of me. I have never met a single one that was liberal in their thoughts, ideas, attitudes or behavior. Many of them are anti-gay, bible thumping Republicans who have no problem spending the money the West gives them. (except for the fact that they are oblivious how much of our tax dollars go over the mountains). They are more likely to be in a militia than a bookstore. Any liberals over there would probably get beat up by some bullies in school. Who knows what the consequences are for being different.

It is much better to live West of the Mountains than East of the Mountains. In the East, they are poorer, more ignorant, and as such - more vulnerable to right wing hate radio.

Spokane is known for right-wing, gun wielding, racist men who think that the police do not know how to do their job. They form circle-jerk militia groups, dress up in their costumes, and have annual pissing contests. They also like to talk crap about the "pinko commies in the West", you know, the people in Seattle who make real money, and pay all those taxes that support them on the other side of the mountains.

Wednesday, May 15, 2013

The Indictment of Reproductive Slavery and A Voice For Men

Written By Naomi Chambers


Reproductive rights are human rights - or so it seems. This is the theme of John the Other's opening paragraph in his blog Reproductive Slavery. He asserts that for him at least, reproductive rights are human rights. He argues that every person has the right to self-ownership. Every person has the right to choose whether or not they will reproduce. That being said, I cannot see how any moral person would disagree with him. He concludes paragraph one, stating that in the real world, only women have the right to choose whether or not to reproduce themselves. Men have no such rights. Therefore, reproductive rights are women's rights, not human rights. 

One of the first issues I wish to examine, is whether slavery is the correct term to use when we are discussing men's rights to reproduce themselves. From a legal perspective, when sperm enters a woman's body, the woman has legal ownership of the sperm. The heart of John's argument seems to be, if a man does not want a baby, and the woman does, does he have the same reproductive rights as the woman? Can he force a woman to have an abortion?

I think the statement, "reproductive rights are human rights,"  is a misleading cliché. The reason is simple. Men and women do have the right to reproduce themselves. I know of no law forbidding men from having children. I know of no law forcing sterilizations upon men. Although I strongly believe that people who carry certain genetic diseases should not reproduce when there is a likelihood they will pass that disease onto their offspring, the fact is - everyone has the right to reproduce. Therefore, the right to reproduce is a human right extended to both women and men. 

But, that is not what John is arguing. He is arguing, "the right to not reproduce, is a human right." Herein, I must also agree that the right to not reproduce is a human right. He goes on to write, "her body, her choice."  So what we are talking about, is about a man's right to not reproduce. Men do have the right to not reproduce themselves.  John has yet to explain why men are choosing not to exercise their right to condoms and vasectomies, but he does raise important points about male birth control which I will address later in this blog. 

Saturday, May 11, 2013

How We Lie to Ourselves


I find that general systems of logic work for most people. The problem, is that people seek out information only to destroy it. I have seen this work in a several ways. There are those people who see what they want to see. Then we have the people who actively ignore evidence. Then there are the people who are willfully ignorant, when we explain to them, what logical fallacies are and why they are bad – no matter how easy it is to understand, we know the individual has the IQ to get it – they actively choose not to get it.

Self-deception has a psychological advantage. It makes the person feel good. Self-deception occurs because we want to feel good, and deception can help us do that. At first glance, we realize that self-deception has the great advantage of making us feel warm and fuzzy inside. Sometimes, self-deception gives us feelings of meaning and purpose, feelings that are otherwise missing in our lives.

Lying to ourselves has costs, even when those costs are not immediately felt. When we base conscience decisions on falsehoods, in many situations this can turn around and bite us. We see the consequences when waging offensive, ridiculous wars based upon the fact we deluded ourselves into thinking that country has weapons of mass destruction and in cahoots with Bin Laden. It is seen more often in romantic disasters – when we date a mentally ill/alcoholic/abusive person, and delude ourselves into thinking that the person is really good deep down. Time and again, alienating ourselves from reality has costs – huge costs.

Censoring Input

Humans commonly seek out publications that mirror or support their prior views and largely avoid those that don’t. If I see an article discussing befits of higher education, you bet that I am going to read it. If I see a YouTube video from some person talking about why they think it is a waste of time to get a Bachelor’s degree, you bet I will ignore it. This is my bias working.
Some people avoid taking an HIV test because they would rather not know. The person feels happier and more secure being ignorant about their HIV status. We all know the huge costs this carries for society.

Attending Input

When we do allow input to enter our brains, we must wrestle with other cognitive biases. Confirmation bias is the one I am most accustomed to experiencing in myself and in others. People actively seek out, and focus their attention on things that conform to their beliefs rather than negate their beliefs. This in itself has nothing to do with deceit or deception.

Biased Memory

We more easily remember positive information about ourselves than negative. It feels good – doesn’t it. When I was twelve years old, my grandmother was complaining about bad things other family members did to her. She boasted a story about how her son-in-law commented that she was right about something. Grandma told that story more times than I can remember. I turned to my grandmother, and asked a question I should not have asked her, “Grandma, can you tell me a story when you were wrong about something?” Let me just say – this did not end well.
People remember their children being better, smarter and more talented than they actually were. People remember themselves being smarter, better and more talented than they really were. Examine the present, just go to YouTube and examine the comments. It is amazing how many people think they are so wonderful, intelligent, and most importantly – RIGHT. How many people really know themselves, or pay attention to how often they are wrong about things?

Brokaw / Vidal Interview

Memories are not photos, nor are they videos. Memories are degraded over time, enhanced by the emotions that shape our words, words that shape our thoughts, memories are easily degraded.
One can even reverse exactly who is saying what to whom. Tom Brokaw, on NBC’s Today Show interviewed Gore Vidal, insisting that Vidal answer questions about his bisexuality. Vidal did not want to talk about bisexuality and wanted to talk about politics.

More on this topic coming soon!



Friday, May 10, 2013

Folly of Fools: The Logic of Deceit and Self-Deception

I checked out a new book from our public library, The Folly of Fools: The Logic of Deceit and Self-Deception in Human life. I think the book will help me understand why people acquire information, only to later destroy that information, and completely deceive themselves in the process. 

Why did we evolve amazing brains, only to trick ourselves out of using them properly? Natural selection should have rooted out such tendencies — unless they offer some evolutionary advantage.

I always thought that some people lie to themselves because they are protecting themselves. But can the answer really be that simple? Can we really draw a line between conscience and unconscious deception? Why fight so hard, to hold onto a false belief? I found a New York Times book review: LINK. If you would like to read it along with me, click the link below.

Tonight - Chapter One :-)

Thursday, May 9, 2013

Epistemology the Product of Doubt

I hope that everyone takes the time to doubt themselves. Only the fool thinks that there is a snowball’s chance in hell they could be wrong about something. In today's blog, I am going to talk a little about the product of healthy doubt, it is called Theory of Knowledge. Fast thinking, arrogant types need a healthy dose of ToK. Rationality is by far an important virtue. In the realm of reason, epistemology is by far one of the most important skills one must know in order to possess a rational mind. A truly rational person cannot be without theory of knowledge.

When we have asked ourselves seriously whether we really know anything at all, we are naturally led into an examination of knowing, in the hope of being able to distinguish trustworthy beliefs from such as are untrustworthy.

I will divide this discussion into two sections. One: knowledge, and what the hell is knowledge anyway? Two: data. I will not go into logical systems, often called inferences, because that is too much material to cover in one blog. I will only be examining what knowledge is and the data used to support correctness of knowledge.

Knowledge – What it is and how to get it

Knowledge: belief that is in agreement with facts. Period.

I already lost a lot of people on that one. Faith is not knowledge. Trust is not knowledge. Having a “feeling” something is true, is not knowledge. 

Now that we know what knowledge is (pun intended), how do we get knowledge. The important part here is that we want our knowledge to be correct. We want as many true beliefs as we can have, and reject as many false beliefs as we can. After all, who wants to go around believing and thinking things that are not true? Certainly not me. I spent enough time in my early twenties doing that. Acquiring knowledge involves complex thinking, awareness that emotion is your enemy, and awareness that fast thinking is your enemy.

In defining knowledge, there are two further matters to be taken into consideration, namely the degree of certainty and the degree of precision. All knowledge is more or less uncertain and more or less vague. These are, in a sense, opposing characters: vague knowledge has more likelihood of truth than precise knowledge, but is less useful. One of the aims of science is to increase precision without diminishing certainty. But we cannot confine the word "knowledge" to what has the highest degree of both these qualities; we must include some propositions that are rather vague and some that are only rather probable. It Is important, however, to indicate vagueness and uncertainty where they are present, and, if possible, to estimate their degree. Where this can be done precisely, it becomes "probable error" and "probability". But in most cases precision in this respect is impossible.

Data and Evidence

Evidence is a piece of information that supports a conclusion. In the law, we would say means, motive, and opportunity. When I write about evidence, one of my favorite targets is Judge Esther L. Wiggins because the woman displays zero ability to understand the basic definition of evidence. As a result, she makes it very easy for people to lie to her. 

Here is an example:

EK: Jane has been doing all of this international travel, and paid $4000 in child support only to retain her passport and continue travelling internationally.

EW: What kind of a person pays child support just to continue travelling international!!! I just don’t get it. (in case you missed it, EW believed the claim even though the claim had ZERO evidence)

In the above example, there was no means to travel internationally. The means do not exist for two reasons. One: Jane was a full time student and has the records to prove it. Two: Jane has no money to travel internationally, and has the bank statements to prove it. In fact, opportunity has also been negated in this one. Three: there are no stamps in Jane's passport corroborating the claim she was travelling internationally. 

Moreover, all Esther Wiggins had to do was ask EK one question: " Hey EK, you claim Jane was travelling internationally - ummm - just a notion - ummm, but how do you know this? What countries did she go to? What evidence do you have to support this?"

When people use this kind of bad logic, they are committing several wrong acts. Other than making themselves look like gullible morons, they are choosing to have false beliefs rather than true ones, wronging all of society in the process.

Knowledge – How Not To Get It

Here is a list of ways you should not get knowledge. I could write pages upon pages of how NOT to get knowledge. I will keep it short and simply
·         Automatically believing what people tell you
·         Relying upon the appeal to authority, appeal to tradition, or ad hoc reasoning.
·         Relying upon any logical fallacy.

Evidence – How Not to Get It
·         Trust that others tell you the evidence is correct, do not verify it
·         Believe the evidence is correct because your feelings tell you it is correct
·         Take anything on trust or faith
Make it up out of thin air

Force of personality is not evidence. Unfortunately, many religious people are duped by this one. They tend to trust charismatic charlatans. They believe people who make them smile.  People who know how to speak well are often believed even though their arguments are complete garbage. Finding evidence means sifting through the games people play, and finding the substance of an argument.

This blog is only about defining knowledge and evidence, the basic components of epistemology, or asking how do we know what we know. I do not want to examine inferences people make about the evidence they gathered. 

What I must say, is that emotional thinking is by far one of the biggest enemies of rational thought. Fast thinking is the second big enemy of rational thought. Irrational people will believe things because others tell them X thing is true. (Esther Wiggins - this is you :-) Irrational people believe things because their emotions tell them it is true. Rational people reject emotions, feelings, and understand that other people cannot be trusted. Rational people do not trust themselves, the question whether their perceptions of reality are accurate.

When we know what knowledge is, and show basic epistemology, doubt ourselves at every turn, we are placing ourselves in a much better position to discover truth. 

My philosopher's closet

I am a philosopher, and spent countless evenings pondering the meaning of certain life events. My passion for logic grows every year. Logic is the basic tool of our lives. Words represent thoughts, we need correct words and correct thoughts to form cogent arguments. If we are unable to form cogent arguments, we will live our lives as ignorant people. 
I am also apologetically judgmental. When I encounter a person who is so ungodly stupid, I judge them. Unless they are disabled, or deprived education - you better believe I judge them. Philosophy is the study of the  fundamental nature of knowledge, reality and existence. My favorite area of philosophy is epistemology. Plato defined it as "justified true belief." I describe it the study which answers the following questions, "how do you know what you know? what qualifies as knowledge?
In a world of liars, dim-wits, charlatans, superstition and millions of people willing to believe anything because it "feels good", or because they just "want to believe", how can we ascertain real from not real? This is where epistemology comes in.

In future essays I will discuss epistemology, in this essay, we will examine three basic ways to reason and discuss some of their flaws.
  • Deductive Reasoning
  • Inductive Reasoning by Generalization
  • Inductive Reasoning by Analogy

Deductive Reasoning starts with a major premise, usually a broad and generally applicable truth. Then, you have a minor premise, which is more specific and narrow. Then you have the minor premise, which is usually a more specific and narrowly applicable fact. It starts with the general and goes to the specific. 
The principle is that what is true of the universal is also true of the specific. In deductive reasoning, you reason from the general to the particular, so it is essential that the general statement is a  the universal truth. 
One of the things we know about Deductive Reasoning, is that if we later learn that the general premise was false, all 'true' conclusions drawn from that false premise must also be false. 
Inductive Reasoning By Generalization is uses when one cannot rely on universals or settled law to provide a major premise to compel a conclusion. I do not like this logical system because it requires one build their own major premise through inductive reasoning.   Inductive reasoning by generalization uses several specific facts to create a theory that explains relationships between those facts and supports your conclusion. 
I wrote a paper in for a Philosophy of Science class, discussing the flaws of inductive logic. In short, when one's predictions do not come out as they expected, the entire system of logic must be replaced. With inductive reasoning, you can never be certain that your conclusion is true, but through your supporting facts, you should be able to establish that your conclusion is highly probable. This is the most common forms of reasoning in Court, and when the courts make mistakes, it is because this form of reasoning was used.
Inductive Reasoning By Analogy is another form of inductive reasoning common in law, in which you make one-to-one comparisons and draw similarities between two different things. Rather than reasoning from the general to the specific (deductive reasoning) or from the specific to the general (generalizations), analogy requires reasoning from the specific to the specific.

To correctly use an analogy one must do the following things:

 (1) establish similarities between two cases;
(2) announce the rule of law embedded in the first case; and
(3) apply the rule of law to the second case.

Successful analogy depends on the relevancy of the comparison.One thing I say to people is that the two things being compared must be similar in Form and Function. Reasoning by analogy is a dangerous path because many people mistakenly think that if two things are alike in one or more respects, they are necessarily alike in some other respect. Once, a man tried telling me that no two men were alike. He showed me his hand, and asked "are any two fingers alike?" No, they are not. Men are like fingers, no two are alike.

Although I agree no two men are exactly alike, his analogy was faulty. The analogy is correct only to the degree that fingers and men are similar to each other.

It is important to detail the similarities between the cases and to acknowledge their differences. You must establish that the relevant similarities outweigh the relevant differences and therefore the outcomes should be the same. This can be tricky for people who see what they want to see.

Wednesday, May 8, 2013

Sylvia Browne Wrong, Again

$ $ $ $ $ $

It is not a secret that I do not like self proclaimed "psychic" and "spiritual medium" Sylvia Browne.

I think she knows damn well that she is not psychic. She knows she is lying to people, waiting for the vulnerable, exploiting them when they are at their weakest.

What is even more repugnant to me, is that people give this woman a platform. She made several appearances on the Montel Williams show and Larry King Live. Anderson Cooper had her on, and unlike the others seems to be the only one to know she is full of shit.

 When James Randy offered her one million dollars to prove she had psychic powers, she weaseled her way out of it. Then, she had the nerve to turn around, and tell James Randy that she "feels sorry for him", because he is an atheist. How can I find the words to describe this disgusting, filthy excuse for a human being. Watch my video at the end of this blog to find out. In the mean time, I am going to keep this blog short and simple. I could go on for paragraphs about how much I want to punch a hole through this woman's face for what she did to these heartbroken people.

Gallows Humor à la Naomi

While researching Gallows Humor, I stumbled upon a website called where I learned that eighteen people are set to be executed for 2013. The list consists of seventeen (17) men and one (1) woman. Several of the men scheduled to die this year murdered their girlfriends children.  Britt Allen murdered his ex-girlfriend and her two year old daughter. After anally raping his girlfriends three year old daughter, Ronald Phillips bludgeoned the child to death. I read the judicial analysis of this case, and it left me shaken. It is no secret that I am against the death penalty and have been for as long as I can remember. I think these people are guilty, and know they have left a trail of tears behind them. I think that judicial killings is morally wrong. Be that as it is, sometimes humor is the best way to deal with things that make us uncomfortable.

 As far as gallows humor is concerned, I would like to wish the following individuals a happy new year. Mark Spotz, Robert Gleason, Kimberly McCarthy, Chris Sepulvado, Britt Ripkowski, Carle Blue, Larry Swearingen, Fredrick Treesh, Michael Gonzales, Rigoberto Avila, Ronnie Threadgill, Elroy Chester, Steven Smith, Douglas Feldman, Billy Slagle, Harry Mitts and Ronald Phillips.

I just had a fleeting thought. If one of these death row inmates had a New Years Resolution, what would it be? Get more exercise? Eat better? Read Moby Dick? Every day that passes they know they are going to die. These people are living to die. They are waiting to die. 

Lethal injection is the standard of care for executions in the United States, and available in every state that practices judicial killings. Before the day arrives, the inmates are given a pre-execution physical to make sure they are in good health. Executing someone who has the flu would not be kosher in the slightest.

When the big day arrives, the executioner will always swab the arm with alcohol before inserting the needle. There is some mumbo-jumbo circulating the internet that the arm is swabbed in the one in a billion possibility that a renegade bacteria will hijack the Sodium Pentothal, 2.0, weakening the death drug. But, lets face it - what are the chances that would happen? The real reason the arm is swabbed is because the Warden does not want the inmate to catch a nasty infection nine minutes before they succumb to cardiopulmonary arrest.

Tuesday, May 7, 2013

Letter from Adam Smith Regarding his support for CISPA

April 26, 2013

Ms. Naomi Chambers, Ms

Des Moines, Washington 98198

Dear  Naomi ,

Thank you for contacting me with your thoughts about cybersecurity and the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA).  I appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts with me on this important issue. 

There has been an increase in cyber attacks on government agencies, financial institutions, and other private industries in the United States and globally.  Our current defenses are not keeping pace with the increasing amount and sophistication of attacks, and our nation is at greater risk as a result.  

he Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA) ,  H.R. 624, creates a system for the government and private sector companies and organizations to share information about cyber threats.  Information sharing can help the private sector better defend itself from threat and attack by enabling the government to share  cyber  information with companies.  Additionally, this legislation also addresses legal, policy, and procedural barriers to provide companies with avenues to, at the companies' option, share important information about  the  cyber threats they face.  This information, provided by the private sector, can help improve the government's ability to protect against cyber threats and offer better knowle dge about potential cyber risks  back to private sector entities.

I was pleased to see several notable improvements in this legislation's protection of privacy and civil liberties over previous versions.  The elimination of a broad provision that allowed information sharing for "national security uses" was a major step to improve privacy concerns.  Now the bill only allows information sharing for more specific threats: cybersecurity, cyber crimes, protection from mortal danger or harm, and protection of minors from child pornography.  CISPA also mandates the government to minimize or remove personally identifiable information obtained from the private sector, requires civilian entities within the government to receive information about cyber threats and crimes from the private sector, and adds oversight responsibilities for the Privacy and Civil Liberties Board (PCLOB).

With that said, I do have significant privacy concerns with the legislation.  The bill is still in need of stronger requirements for private companies to protect personal information and privacy before cybersecurity data is shared.  Along with that, I have concerns that the liability protection provided by CISPA remains too broad for action taken by private entities in response to cyber threat information.

CISPA was considered by the full House of Representatives on April 18, 2013 and passed by a vote of 288 to 127.   I voted for CISPA because it offers us an important opportunity to begin to get a handle on the real and growing cybersecurity threats that face us, but the bill is not perfect.

This bill w ill go to conference with cybersecurity legislation that is eventually passed by the Senate.  During that process I will continue to fight to protect personal privacy and alleviate civil liberty concerns.  However, given the many intelligence briefs I have received as Member of Congress detailing previous cyber attacks and our vulnerabilities to future attacks, doing nothing to improve our defense against cyber attacks right now is unacceptable.

Thank you again for sharing your thoughts about cybersecurity and CISPA.  Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future with any other concerns.


Adam Smith
Member of Congress