Thought and Thesis

While laying in bed an interesting question came to me that I would like to put toward Christians: "Why would a all loving, all powerful, perfect being create such imperfect species? Why, too, would that being then require those imperfect creatures to worship it with unwaveringly devotion with the intention of then rewarding that devotion with a place in heaven? If that being we're truly all loving, then wouldn't it have just made created those beings in heaven? Heaven is meant to be a reward for faith. That reward is given by God. Yet it is also God that created the beings that will be rewarded for faith. To be rewarded for faith one must have the chance not to have faith. So God created imperfect beings. Yet what kind if reward is it when your own creator has made you flawed for the soul purpose of faith, and then to reward you for it? And does God take pity on his own creations? Yes, thusly giving the reward for faith. This is all very confusing. It seems insane t

Long have philosophers taken great time to talk about the alienation of the laborer in their work, in their place of chosen labor. Long have we talked about an individual becoming, through the advancement of technology, merely a cog in the wheel. That over time the individual becomes alienated from what they are doing, what their labor is being put into. These great works often are directed toward the laborer that is employed in a profession that is of ones own choosing. A profession in which the workers skill is the labor. What is little talked about is the alienation of a worker who find employment outside the skill set that is held. Why have these people not been addressed? The answer is complicated and rooted in the history and changing face of labor. In the earliest days of the realization of alienation most people, it would seem, found their labor being put toward those things that they had skill in. Be it factory work, analyst, or shop keeper. The job that you worked in was v

So I've started a new roleplaying blog, Thought and Thesis (the Roleplaying Edition). For anyone interested head on over. http://bit.ly/nR4H0p

Dangerous Paths  For many years this nation has be wandering down a dangerous path. It has bet against its future for the now. It has placed the few above the many. All in the name of holding to a weak and narrow minded point of view. The view that is founded on a philosophy that people will always do what is best for them and those around them. A philosophy that people are naturally good an will be just to their fellow man.  This view is one that is shared by many, sadly it is not the case in reality. The falsity of the view, and the philosophy behind it, is made all the more clear when it is combined with the economic principles that are held by those that tout the view. These people, with their high ideals of man and it goodness, want to also tout the principles of Capitalism. A system that flies in the face of the natural goodness that is the core of their social views. Capitalism does not support the philosophy that the touters try to claim it does. Rather, Capitalism pits man a

If you read before I had a hard choice to make. Do I start a new campaign and now invite a person, or play the old one amd try not to invite the person? Well, in somewhat of a lucky turn of events, not for the two people involed, but for me at least, I've been able to make the choice I've need to. That choice is to start a new campaign. In reality it has started. I'm almost done with the first session of writing and the group,, minus the problem person, is getting together oh Sunday the 3rd of July. Once it was clear that I now longer had to worry about the problem child and that persons inability to set a day and time to play, everything went smoothy. I text the people that I wanted to come. Asked able a date. And other then a small change, everyone was right on board. No hassle, no fuss. It felt damn good to be able to have a group of people again that wanted to play amd were all willing to set a date amd time. So now I'm back in the DM chair, or at least will be,

Today I found out that my significant other was denied heath insurance by Blue Cross Blue Shield. Their reasoning about this was that she was to high of a risk. To high of a risk?!? What kind of risk? Are they afraid that she is going to come down with some kind of life threatening illness? Are they afraid that she will not be able to pay her premiums? That cannot be the case. She has had coverage for years and has never had anything major happen. She has always paid what she was expected to. So, again, what kind of risk? It is not as if she is going to break the bank. Yet, there it is isn't it. She may break the bank. Oh, I am sure that Blue Cross Blue Shield will say that she is to much of a health risk. But what they are really saying is this: "We don't what to pay what you may cost us", "We're afraid that you will cut into our profits". This is the reason that is underlying all the horrible problems that this country has in its healthcare system. W

So, if you've read before, I've been trying to get my roleplaying group back together to finish the campaign that I started years ago. Part of the problem was mine and finding the time to write so we could get together. The other problem, and one that I rarely bring up, was the problem of getting all the players to agree to a time. Our group is pretty big, 7 in all, 6 player and me as DM. In the past, when the campaign started out it was a fairly easy thing to get everyone to agree to the next session. But now it's been a few years and it's nearly impossible. It's not that a majority can't agree, it just always ends up being one or two of the players that can't fond the ability to commit to a date and time. This has meant that even though I've said okay well the rest of us will play on that date and you can come if you want, the other players have ended up say no... we want the whole group together. Okay, that's fine, but then don't come to me

     A question has always vexed me concerning the ways in which we pick and choose the states we support in the Middle East. Outside of the clear self-serving economic reasons that lead us into support oppressive dictatorships and monarchs, while at the same time talking about spreading democracy, we seem to have at least one state that we support not only because it is a democracy, but also because of its religious affiliation. The state that I speak of is Israel.      Now let me come out right up front and say that I am not against the Israel being a state. Nor am I against the Israel people, or the Jewish people that make up a majority of the citizens of that state. In fact, of the being three western monotheistic religions, I think that Judaism is the most pure and natural of the three.      What I am against is the United States being in support of Israel as a Jewish state. This stance has for to long pitted us against other Middle Eastern states and organizations that have ver

It should be of no surprise to anyone that U.S. foreign policy would have a relationship to U.S. domestic policy. With that in mind, it doesn’t hurt to look at what they have in common. It seem, that U.S. foreign policy is split at least between two, if not more, principles. The first being one directed toward theories of democracy, freedom, and human rights. The other directed toward national security. Which is, more often then not, paraphrased by saying what is in our national economic interest. It is clear how these are a reflectance of U.S. domestic policy’s in that while we do believe in democracy, freedom, and human rights, we also believe in economic security. That said, one of these principles is founded on time honored traditions of rationality and morality. The other is founded off of traditions of personal desire focused toward economic ends. Because of this, in the process of foreign and domestic implementation, these policy’s are conflicting if not totally un

I just finished watching this wonderful documentary about the build up to the Iraq war done by PBS's Frontline. It aired back in 2008 and gives clear a concise view of the decision making, and power struggles, that when in the Bush Administration leading up to and during the war. While it does not come right out and say it, it is clear that the two people that were at the lead of the push for the war in Iraq, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, were both filled with hubris and war hawkishness, that it led them into an even deeper incompetence then they were already in. It may have ended up being Bush's war, but it was a war made by war hawks and fools. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/bushswar/

So back in November I made the big decision to start back up with my campaign. It was a big step in the right direction and it felt good to be able to get back on the horse. Sadly, as comes with living in the real world, I wasn't able to get it going again. My players were really happy and all ready to start up again with their shinny knew 4E versions of there characters. But, as I said, the real world decided that it had more interesting plans for me. Needless to say, my players were not to happy. And once again I had to explain how sorry I was and that as soon as things started to fall back into place we would play. For me this was a really big hit. I was really looking forward to getting my feet wet again and it was exciting. For me it had been way to long, as anyone that read that blog from November would know. Well the world, at least for now, is starting to make a little more sense. And I really do have very big hopes that I will be able to start up on the campaign yet again.

As the last semester of university comes to an end I have been wondering what I will do with my philosophical readings and writings. I realize that I don't want to give up on my writings. And while I have found some outlet for those writings, the kind of peer review that you get in an university setting will no longer be within arms reach. With this revelation in mind I have been trying to think of a way that I can keep that kind of interaction alive. I have no idea if there is a philosophy group in my area, and surely I will be going out to look for one, but I still feel like the is something more that I could be doing. So with that In mind I think that I may, or at least try, to form a philosophy group myself. The premise of this group will simply be to have a venue for people to talk, get there ideas out, and generally be able to have a community that they can be a part of that is focused around that philosophical part of themselves that is otherwise looked at strangely by other