War is a human practice that has been advancing parallel with the overall advancement of human society. As our economic and technological capabilities grow, our ability to wage war increases theoretically. However, as human society advances, the more complex it becomes and even a simple action of warfare has multiple unintended consequences that cannot be foreseen. As society advances and refines itself, war’s place in society is changing faster than we can change war itself.

            War in the modern era is highly mechanized with formal regulations that are sometimes recognized. War has been on the downfall ever since the end of the Cold War but conflict has been on the rise since the early 1990s. Both war and conflict have an outmoded structure of top-down decision making. Combined with the dynamic of economics and war being tied ever closer together as time goes on, this spells a recipe for disaster for civilians who have no influence in the decision-making of warring parties.

Civilians make up most casualties in war. The cessation of trench warfare and the invention of warplanes and other sophisticated devices that target buildings and large urban centers ensure this. The international system of laws and regulations attempts to minimize civilian casualties. However the structure of the international system is essentially anarchy, because every state must be sovereign unto itself, there is no practical or forceful way to regulate warfare or to minimize civilian casualties.

Top-down decision-making of warring parties and the ability to harness unprecedented amounts of force for warfare stunt the amount of civilized exchange in warfare. Individuals anywhere should be autonomous without fear of losing their lives. If individuals are threatened by political and economic forces beyond their control they cannot freely contribute to society. In other words, warfare as it has been and as we know it today discourages individuals from gathering freely and forming solid foundations for the future of their society. The autonomy of the individual is tied with the autonomy of the individual’s intellect and therefore the autonomy of society.

Honest intellectual exchange is the means by which the foundations for a stable society are laid and is kept alive in the modern age. Indeed, intellectual exchange is really what the word civilized refers to as opposed to barbarism. Society/civilization, as a collection of human individuals, has to be more than just a function of pure force, political or economic. Society must have a vision, a direction to work towards in order to be a stable growing entity. Civilization, as the balancing of forces for overall stabilization, is a necessary product of our human identities and intellect; warfare, as the overuse of force for destructive purposes, is the perversion of our human identities and intellect.

As human beings we cannot deny what we are. Warfare is detrimental to human development because it heavily devalues human life and it values the exchange of pure mechanical force over open human intellectual discourse. The integrity of the individual must be valued over political and economic power-plays. If we are to perfect our society, we must be willing to reconcile our actions and our foundational values in a way that preserves our human dignity.

When confronted with a problem that must be eliminated, the most logical response is to destroy the cause of the problem and the problem will disappear.

But the Bush Administration does not think logically.

On September 11, 2001 America was attacked on it’s own soil for the first time since the War of 1812 by Al-Qaeda. The organization of Al-Qaeda is, from what we know now, completely responsible. Al-Qaeda is an organization that transcended any sort of national-political boundary. It has and does currently operate in multiple nations simultaneously. Al-Qaeda acquires its money and resources from its members and from the generous donations of many people and organizations.

In the aftermath of September 11, the international community mourned for America and supported America during it’s mourning. Very quickly, America’s grief turned to revenge. The Bush Administration named Iraq as the enemy. The tone of the nation discouraged people from asking essential questions. The few with the courage to ask those questions were silenced by their peers who chided them for “being unpatriotic”.

The public was quickly sold on this idea because the media sold its soul by promoting it and decided to shirk its responsibilities by not asking the hard questions to keep the government accountable. The Press chose to accept whatever information the neoconservative think-tanks and Bush administration gave them without question. The Press failed the American public by not searching for and publishing essential information.

The second disappointment was that the public accepted this treatment without question. America initiated the invasion of Iraq with 80-90% approval ratings (of the invasion). How could the public not ask questions about such a serious multiple-decade commitment? The generation after Vietnam, the American public believed that “[America] will only be in there for about a year and the whole operation will only cost about one billion dollars.” [Fox News]. After Vietnam, when these same lies were used to dupe America into a hopeless war in Southeast Asia, how could anyone possibly put any merit in these lies? It is ridiculous to think that America could invade a country and transform it into a democracy under a year with only one billion dollars. It’s just never that simple.

The Bush Administration has still not addressed its former claims that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction before the invasion of Iraq.  Dick Cheney, was a fierce proponent of this view. Saddam Hussein supposedly had “[nuclear] weapons that could reach America in approximately forty-five minutes” [Fox News].

Well, where are these fantastical weapons? Sean Hannity claims that the chemical weapons degraded and found buried under the ground of the Iraq-Iran border were the weapons the Bush Administration was referring to-the ones bound for America. He is conveniently forgetting that these weapons were obviously bound for Iran during the Iraq-Iran war. When they were found it was obvious that they were completely forgotten about, even the locals did not know they were there.  Plus the weapons had degraded to the point of ineffectiveness. Also, weapons like these had to be moved on the ground and took about a day to be moved several miles on the ground. Iraq had no advanced weapons launching system to speak of. So clearly, those weren’t the weapons of mass destruction that could hit America in forty-five minutes.

Where are they?

The former presence of the IAEA supposedly proved the current existence of the weapons of mass destruction. However, Saddam Hussein would not let the IAEA in the country for several years. When they were let in reluctantly by the US, the IAEA found no conclusive evidence of any WMD-developing activity since the Iraq-Iran war.

It is obvious that there were no weapons of mass destruction at all.

These factual inconsistencies drove away America’s allies, both new and traditional, weakening America’s stance in the world and our war efforts.

America tried to justify the invasion of Iraq by presenting a report to the UN, presented by Colin Powell with then CIA Director George Tenet. I read the report that was published online. It was a huge report filled with an incredible amount of speculation. The report focused on the satellite photographs that allegedly showed facilities that made weapons of mass destruction in the Iraqi countryside. George Tenet called the case against Iraq “a slam dunk” based off of this report. These specific facilities were later proven to be facilities that made hydrogen-balloons for scientific research purposes.

So Iraq’s implication in the September eleventh attacks still remain a mystery, because clearly the Bush administration’s former arguments are not valid at all (unless there is sensitive information detailing a huge scheme peripheral facts can’t hint at, which is highly highly unlikely). I will not pretend to know the Bush Administration’s intentions, so I will not speculate why the Administration acted in such a dishonorable way.  I cannot wait until the CIA records are released twenty years from now to find out why the Bush administration failed to protect the American people by diverting to Iraq.

Anyways, according to many intelligence agencies, Al-Qaeda’s operational headquarters were somewhere around the eastern border between Afghanistan and Pakistan (Waziristan).  To their credit, the Bush administration invaded Afghanistan first with NATO forces. I have to say that was the best possible course of action. Now Afghanistan is a quagmire because of the tough terrain, cultural complexities, lack of troops and lack of resources in the area. If only the Bush administration did not get so distracted with Iraq and stayed the course in Afghanistan perhaps America and the world would be a safer place.  

Blue America made so many political victories during the most recent elections in the US. However, one stunning loss truly took my breath away. The passage of Proposition 8 in the State of California.

During the forties and fifties, when homosexuals were still considered perverts and mentally disturbed, homosexuals left the small hometowns of Middle America and joined the army seeking their own autonomy in a world that entirely rejected them. The army placed placed most young people in the major urban centers of America (New York, San Francisco, San Diego, etc.). Naturally, California ended up with a net amount more than any other state. However, New York has more homosexuals in terms of cities. California elected the first openly gay City Manager Harvey Milk, which was groundbreaking. 

After lots of fighting in court, the California State Supreme Court ruled that the ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional. The issuances of gay marriages started on June 17th, 2008 and was halted after the vote of November 4, 2008 in which the population of the State of California voted it down by an incredibly narrow margin.

It seems to me that this is a logically inconsistent position to take especially in terms of the United States Constitution. Legally, opposition to same-sex marriage is hard to justify. There is no reference to God’s Law specifically within the Constitution. There is no proof any of the principles of the American Constitution are based on Biblical values as opposed to Enlightenment values, which there is plenty of evidence for. The Constitution does say that all individuals should be treated equally under the law (fourteenth amendment). And that the government shall make no establishment of religion (first amendment).

The best conservative argument against this stance is that marriage seems to predate organized religion. However, the full value of marriage today is religious, proven by the content of all their arguments. However, by definition, marriage as a legal institution part of the United States government, is a secular institution. As a branch of the US government is subject to all the regulations and principles of the Constitution. Therefore, the US government has to open up it’s institution of marriage to everyone because everyone is entitled to have equal rights under the law (fourteenth amendment). 

For those of you who think that the mixing of religion and government is inconsequential. I would like to point out all of the atrocities committed by the two combined throughout all of human history everywhere. There  is a reason it is not in our Constitution or any of the foundations of our government.  

If the government wants to avoid this inconsistency, it could get rid of the institution of marriage. Technically, it should not even be there in the first place because of the fundamental secular nature of our government. The government should replace marriage with civil unions for legal and tax-related reasons and marriage should be fully in the religious world. This is the only logically consistent argument I have seen in this debate supporting any side of it, and I fully support this position.

Winter Break is always a time to reflect and take stock of the fall. I had many unexpectedly good moments. I learned many lessons. But I know how much I have to work on. I now fully realize how much further I have to go in this whole college-transition-to-work thing. I know I have to work on my grades and time management. I have to train my mind to absorb huge amounts of information and analyze it-not just to get through college but to excel at my career. Most importantly, I have to become active in my pursuit of the establishment of a career. 

I have to start seeking out mentors and to start seeking out internships and work that not only have an effective impact to reverse the injustices of the world but that can advance my quest to get a graduate degree, because those are SO important. Now, I realize the genius of my placing in New York. No other city in America offers such amazing opportunities for those who truly seek them, especially for my field. I need to stop wasting my time away with distractions that don’t add up to anything in the end. 

I intended to pursue a career in politics because all signs pointed towards it. My inner ’soul’ or whatever tells me that it is truly where I belong. I have the mind for it. And my ultimate aim is to help people by minimizing the wrongs in the world which for the majority of the world’s population are political, economic or a mix of the two. I only feel unclear and uncertain about it because I let the mind-frames of everyone else around me soak into my thoughts. I am on a clearly different path than the people around me on both coasts and instead of ignoring that I should embrace it. But I gotta work for it.

I wonder how this will all work out or if it possibly can. Sometimes I wonder if I distract myself because I subconsciously believe I can’t pull it off and therefore I shouldn’t bother with anything. Well, I guess that doesn’t matter now since I won’t be doing it any more. I’m a little scared I won’t be able to pull it off, but like so many people in the world seem to be able to educate themselves enough to support themselves-so if worse comes to worse I’ll be able to support myself.

I’m beginning to notice that the gigantic amount of high-quality material I’m reading is starting to change the way I think. Now I think nothing of reading a couple hundred pages where as opposed to before it seemed too much for me to accomplish in two weeks. The analysis seems to kick in quicker-now almost simultaneously with the intake of information. My level of thought and speech have become more sophisticated and my life has definitely been enriched by the new habit of reading I’m taking up. I know it will be important later on for work so I better hang on to it. This is DEFINITELY a habit I will be keeping.

I don’t know if having an internship and/or job during the semester is a good idea. My social life will be gone if I do, but like it might be worth it. Even if I only go to City Hall on fridays and like wednesday morning. I’m considering it, because having a job made me so much more serious about everything and at school I get so lazy especially when I see everyone around me stay lazy. I need to get up and go and this internship would be a great reminder of what I’m aiming for. Plus it wouldn’t cut into my time that much.

Working out might also be good for me in that respect. To anchor me into a routine and to “wake me up” from my laziness.

I’m going to try to eat better for cheap because I should value that too-I only get one body. However, that is so difficult, so I’m going to have to draw up some innovative plan.

I’m aiming for the UN this summer. Specifically, the UN sub-agencies because the central UN organization won’t accept undergraduates. That would look AMAZING on my resume. And ideally that IS where I will work one day. If I could get an agency related to the Middle East that would be perfect!!

I’m going to continue to study arabic out of the context of school. My teacher was a native speaker. Sure she knew everything but she couldn’t explain the information in a way that anyone could understand (she taught by the book). I feel like I can do a better job. If I plan to take arabic III during fall semester I better be in shape. Plus if I master modern standard arabic that would look AMAZING on my resume as well.

My Achilles Heel has been my ability to get distracted. Usually by worldly things like the internet, TV, shopping, books or excessive socializing. I’m considering taking some time in the morning to meditate to remind myself what’s really important in life and what lasts at the end of the day. Focus is the most important thing I need right now.

This is the year the Kitten grows into a Lioness :meow: !!

The existence of God has been an idea I have been grappling with for over ten years now. The idea of God, taken out of the context of human culture, seems to be very fantastical. Supposedly, there’s an omnipotent, omniscient entity in the sky who orchestrates and guides our movements while preserving our free will. The Abrahamic texts refer to God in a very human, almost parental way. God is nicknamed ‘Our Father’ and in every instance is referred to as a ‘He’ implying very human qualities (namely, gender) for an entity supposedly not bound by any human limitations. Some religions imply the presence of one grand force through the manifestations of different gods. Other religions name a “Great Spirit” or the “Tao” without any intermediaries. All texts refer to one ungraspable force that designs, permeates, and lives within the Universe and its organisms. The subsequent actions and parables told in these respective texts reflect a similar force acting through different stories. Every text describes the “force” as being omniscient, omnipotent, and all-pervading throughout the Universe. I cannot argue with the universality of this theme, despite the details, God can be recognized throughout all of humanity. However, the fundamental meanings and definitions of the text hinge on the details. The defining point of the Christian religion is the Savior status of Jesus Christ. The defining point of Islam is Prophet Muhammad as the ‘Seal of all the Prophets’. Clearly these two religions cannot both be right about this point. A reading of all the religious texts shows that these details and their incompatibility with each other  are too numerous and fundamental to be ignored. There is a long history of organized religion used as a political tool to keep the population firmly under the control of the state in a psychological manner that also makes me suspicious. The holy texts seem hard to verify in a historical way as well. Because of these huge inconsistencies, I am forced to view religion with the same eye I view ancient mythology-stories that explain human life and the Universe through parables with no factual meaning or basis.  I cannot nor should I trust the revelations to show me the Nature of the Universe anyways, I should be able to figure it out on my own.

That said, this task is nearing impossibility. I have for ten years, wondered if God truly does exist and if so with what conditions. 

The human mind likes to ascribe meaning to everything it perceives, even if it is not the accurate meaning. For this reason alone, I am afraid to use events to attempt to “perceive” the mysteries of the divine. Also, I seem to have stories that justify both theism and atheism in my young life. 

I have had people approach me and say ominous things-things that later I knew I needed to hear. I have met the best people at the best possible time in my life to deliver a message or to help me grow. I have been lucky throughout most of my life. My logic-drenched mind cannot explain why I have been seeing three consecutive-digit numbers EVERYWHERE all the time. Statistically, it is impossible. Right now the predominant numbers are 111, 444, and 777. I cannot explain this.  I see references to God even in the most improbable of places (nailed to a tree, on the back of a person’s shirt). However, besides the numbers, The other instances could be explained by chance or an organized system of Fate (that would exist for what purpose other than to serve God in some way?).

However, I have plenty of stories to counter those first ones. I have yet to find anyone to explain to me why God would let a miscarriage happen; the baby being entirely innocent because it isn’t even out of the whom yet. I have yet to have anyone explain to me why God would birth me into a world in which 2/3 of people cannot feed themselves. Why would God let genocide happen? Or let a child, innocent enough, die at all? If God is the moral authority on Earth, which so many claim that God is, why would God never choose to exercise his authority in defense of the morals ‘He’ claims should treasured and abided by? 

I became tired of struggling with this issue. And that mental exhaustion raises another point, does the existence of God even matter? Are religion and spirituality simply a more advanced way for humans to exercise their instinct to assign meaning to everything? 

When I began to think along these lines, events in my life began to change yet again.

This winter, I have had several moments that have touched me at depths I never knew existed. I have felt the perfect orchestration of the Universe, the imperfection/perfection of people, the frailty of human life, and the power stored within every human. By definition of human nature, this Universe is more than two-dimensional.  

If there is no meaning at all to the Universe, it reduces are lives to a series of two-dimensional events.  To assume that humans, with our weak five senses already know and perceive everything is quite arrogant. Our eyes only perceive a fraction of the colors on the light spectrum. However, that does not mean that the invisible colors do not exist. We have used technology to harness the invisible part of the light continuum to advance our society (radio, tv, microwave, etc.). 

I am comfortable with my uncertainty. I am so comfortable not knowing. Perhaps what I missed all these years was that the constitution of the Universe is obvious and does not matter as much as the mechanics of its function. The interdependence of the world and Universe that most human cultures deny by dividing themselves up with petty differences. Even the fundamental division between humans and God is false, for there must be a little bit of God in everything in the Universe, if God’s Nature is to unify. For the rest of my life I could attempt to dissect the un-dissectable. How can I, someone who is trained to take things apart and analyze them to figure out the whole, take apart the strongest being in the Universe whose only function is to unify everything/itself. However, this argument is also suspicious because what intellectual integrity would I have if I believe in something I can’t fully understand? Also the forces of Nature divide and unify as well. However, it is the best argument I have. This is where I am currently and I am sure I’ll have new ideas soon.

Like I said, I am comfortable with my uncertainty.

My name is Cat Mandler. I chose to start a blog because a dear friend of mine introduced me to the idea of a public blog and I saw merit in it. This will be a forum for me to broadcast my ideas, temper, and refine them. I have no other goal in mind than to improve my intellectual life.