I didn't know it was possible to publish twice in one go!

What are you doing now?

What are you doing now?

animal rights

I don't think we can grant them any rights to life, or know whether they have a natural right to life or not. Animals don't and usually can't make too many choices that will guarantee survival. We still got to eat some. We are not above nature and hence not the guardians of all animals, we are part of nature, we eat and live and die. We cannot leave nature, though we consider ourselves sophisticated. Because of these, I do not believe in animal rights.

And neither should we worship nature or the planet earth because we always end up formalizing it into some person god(s) or motif, and often end up fighting fellow human beings because you feel you are on nature's side. At this point, you have twisted everything with your ego. But this is what often happens.

What we can do with our intelligence and wisdom, is simply to respect animals and be part of this system. If you have to kill them, then thank them and let them understand we hold high regards for them and their species. While respecting animals may seem so crazy today, I didn't make this up. It is quite evident in Native American culture or in any hunter-gatherer culture prehistorically. 

Respecting your prey may even seem evil, if you happen to believe that all human actions are selfish and that such respect will be a sinister way of covering up guilt. This view doesn't work, because

1. there is no guilt. You kill for food or fun or hunting skill(the modern hunter). So no one is covering up anything.

2. if you see all actions as selfish and hence evil, then all that is said is that we can never be moral, whatever we do. That's not true. If it was, then the only more moral thing you could do is to kill yourself. And even that is selfish.

3. It is true that we lead a selfish existence, but we do so like any other species. We can't change this. The world is a free place. If God exists, he meant that we should all compete but be in ultimate harmony. If he did otherwise, he would be an extremely busy communist.

As for conserving their habitat, that is a different story.

Iraq

It is high-time to pull out of Iraq now. If the Iraqis want that, so be it. Most importantly, it is their call, but also every soldier's and veteran's call and the American taxpayer's call, not Obama's call or some general's recommendations. It could even be the "insurgent's" advantage that the US leaves completely, but they are Iraqis too, and should be charged under Iraqi law if they choose to blow people up. And if the dead US servicemen were alive, they too would prefer their comrades serve peacefully and actually defend their country.

As far as I am concerned, most civilians are weary of violence and simply want to make their living in peace. They are just about helpless. Increasingly, they also want their own sovereignty and their own government that would protect them. Factions can go kill each other, but no one really wants civil war. And if they did fight, what is there for the US to do - do nothing, join in or kill both? Either way, US is going to lose support. If the US left Iraq on its own will, maybe the Iraqis will at least respect the US not as a useless occupier but with slightly better impression of it. The US has no moral obligation to deal with a civil war that has deep roots in factions many politicians don't understand and not caused by the US. Personally, I think at most, they want some more division and self-rule for their own factions. They don't have to fight to get it, unless the Iraqi government does not yield and chooses to deal with them.

As for leaving Iraq, No timetable necessary. Just ship everyone back to the US and call it all off. I'm sure the commanders can do it easily, and at low cost. By that, I also mean all those security companies. This has gone long enough and all the strategies just add to the spending. 

And while I have no problems with the production of drugs itself, I suggest the Afghan government could just buy off the opium poppy fields, curbing a large percentage of drug production and related crimes. Doing that could cut down "terrorist group" funds significantly, at least until they find another way. Right now, US troops are not allowed to do anything to the fields. 

As for the future after that, the US really needs to learn to keep fighter planes in the air all the time, and if 9/11 was in any way deliberate or connected to the US government, that they not do it again. No sane civilian in a free society decides to have full-scale war with others, even the most simple intuition will agree. 

People in all the countries on earth need to be free and learn to be far more active in their government's affairs, because that is the simplest and most effective way to prevent any major hostility. The UN or the League of Nations or any other global governing body, whether you believe in its principles or not, has stood by or not been helpful for many conflicts since its founding. At most, they try to pick up the scraps. The world has charitable organizations that are far suited for this. 

Flu Two

- Swine Flu will return, likely after September. The WTO claims so.

- "Tamiflu" and those other drugs may not work when it does return. (Actually, Tamiflu is already useless in some cases. Most also do not need it.) 

- In the way we live now, it is extremely easy to get swine flu. 

- Some people who already have swine flu will not show any symptoms.

- "Swine" flu is already human to human. 

- Swine flu has several strains geographically. Each may react differently to drugs.

The vaccine is not going to work. 

It is also untested. 

It will be given to the population. It will be compulsory, even if it is harmful.

It will cause the swine flu itself for some. 

It will lead to wider changes in the virus, which has a chance of leading to a much worse pandemic. 

Deaths are usually not be due to the virus itself but the cytokine storm triggered. 

Pharmaceutical companies will suck taxpayer money for vaccine and drug stockpiles. 

The economic effects will be disastrous if it coincides with economic problems. 

I am not being ambiguous.