Ockham's Razor

All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best.

There was a very interesting article that I 'Stumbled Upon' earlier today. Update - here is the link. It is one of those stories that makes you feel a little queasy when you consider the possible implications it possesses. This is a story I do not remember hearing in any major news publication before, perhaps one of the few people who read this might be able to fill me in a little more.

So back in July 2001 a man by the name of Larry Silverstein made a very significant purchase. For those of you who do not this story, the date has probably already given away that purchase. Mr. Silverstein purchased four World Trade Center buildings, the most important being WTC 1 and 2. This was the first time in the towers 31 year history that the buildings had been sold and it happened only weeks before the nefarious attacks that changed the political foundation of our modern world. The article that I read, and will post here tomorrow, was based around maintenance issues regarding the asbestos of the WTC towers. The author was essentially questioning why anyone would pay 3+ billion dollars for buildings that were due to have extensive repairs done.

I don't know of the validity of the maintenance issues of the WTC and I don't want to get into the "Loose Change" debate. I simply want to ask a few questions that seem rather important to me. A few questions that I would of wanted answered before sending soldiers off to war. First, why is it that so much of this information has been kept seemingly secret or at least out of public attention for so long? To me it seems anyone due to profit in the billions from insurance only bought weeks before an accident, is either a) blessed with extremely good fortune or b) part of a major crime involving insurance fraud. If this was a murder and the victim had insurance taken out on them only weeks before, you can bet the police would be talking to the insuree. Secondly how is it that the greatest world altering event since WWII has had such a poor response as far as investigation (9/11 Comission reports)? Finally, why is it when anyone asks questions about the WTC attacks, they are automatically labeled as a conspiracy nut? Are people so trusting that they would never believe greedy people would murder for large sums of money?

Anyway, just a few questions I am throwing out there. It seems to me that as a populace we are willing to accept the simplest answer to this terrible event. However I don't think the information given to us has been laid out equally. We have only ever been given a small sample of the whole story.

Discussion on Art.

From the safety of my armchair, I willingly enter into a discussion on "what is art?". Of course it is a philosophical question, brought up after a few beers, meant to stir conversation into the evening. I jokingly poke my friend MFG with "hey you took some Art philosophy classes, so what the hell defines Art anyway?". He quietly concedes he does not really know and that it seems to be open to debate. Considering myself a bit of a pragmatist, I was thoroughly unimpressed with his answer, so I wanted to take this further. I really wish I would of had Wikipedia's article on Art available to me at the time (if only I could have an encyclopedia in my brain) as it would of provided some additional insight. I believe the conversation ended with myself claiming that at its root Art had to have a purposeful message intended by the artist. Today MFG dropped a comment on me, challenging me to elaborate (and rightfully so).

"...I agree, but the problem is that that is only a necessary condition, but not entirely sufficient. In other words how can you distinguish art which communicates from other forms of media, e.g. the news, entertainment, a street sign, which communicate."

Undoubtedly I am getting myself into deeper water, on an armchair that doesn't float, but I will attempt to clarify. To me it would seem that all forms of communication may have an element of art about them, but it is not a required aspect of communication. It would seem that Art is a purposeful tool used by an artist to convey a message in a non-conventional way. I am willing to go out on a limb and claim, that the difference between art and standard communication, is that art requires the audience to have an emotional response. So art must have three things, a message, an audience and an emotional response.

(Continued)

Woke up this morning to a surreal world.

I have spent the majority of the last year inside of a hospital. The latest room I am staying in has an amazing view of a less than amazing city. The usual morning ritual involves flicking a couple of switches and listening to the soft hum motors that raise the blinds to the rooms corner windows. Generally I am greeted by an impressive view of the rocky mountains off to the western horizon and the scene of a mass of vehicles slowly crawling along the Trans Canada. At this point I normally take a slight sadistic joy in watching the angry faced commuters trying to force their way to a job they most likely hate, to pay for the SUV that is currently bringing them so much joy. This morning however was different.

The first thought that entered my mind as the window opened was, white quiet. The air was filled with crystals to the point that the freeway could not be seen. The sun was reduced to a small but brilliant light, it was like a flood light lighting up a foggy night. It was so oddly bright, but yet you could see so very little. It obscured the chaotic world outside of the hospital and instilled in me a very strange calm. I turned on some soft music, and sat on the bed and just enjoyed it for almost a full hour.

More thoughts on politics,

I realize the name of this blog is Eclectism, so making my first two posts on politics might be a bad idea. The problem of course is that during a cold snap of -30 weather, topics of discussion boil down to either politics or hockey. However to be fair, this post actually concerns a border between religion and politics.

I consider myself a liberal leaning, slightly socialist person. My belief is that the most important role a government can have is protecting human rights while maintaining social order. (For arguments sake I will use the UDHR). I guess in a weird sense I am also a bit of a libertarian. Yes I realize how confounded that statement seems. Libertarianism and socialism can probably be found on opposite sides of the political spectrum. Governments will always be necessary, it is simply my belief that legislation should minimize its effects on people and occur only to protect the rights belonging to the people. Legislation occurring simply for reasons of morality, such as holding up the morals of a religion, should never be entertained.

I have always thought it to be an absolutely bizarre phenomenon to have a law put in place to uphold a religious belief. This does not mean that a law created for protecting a persons rights can not coincidentally uphold a religious belief. Such as is the case for the Judaeo-Christian commandment of "thou shall not kill" being coincidentally upheld by various laws against murder/homicide. It means that laws should never be passed in order to protect a person from being offended by another persons actions.

Sometimes there is some very gray areas, where one begins to question the authenticity of a law. For example, laws that are put in place to prevent the solicitation of sex for money. Prostitution, in its simplest sense, is an act that does not contravene a persons human rights. However sexual slavery would be against human rights. So the general argument for laws against prostitution would be that it prevents acts that fall somewhere in the middle, such as living off the avails of prostitution. However, living in a society that is very much against prostitution, these laws are for the most part moralistic in nature. The same can be said for laws against drugs/alcohol, pornography, sexual activity and other similar acts that can be said to be against morals but not against another persons rights.

It is strange to think that sometimes when laws are put in place they actually do the opposite of protecting a persons rights. In almost every situation where a law is put in place for moral reasons, it is almost guaranteed to be against human rights. Of course it is quite possible my logic is flawed...

Short rant about governments.

I am not sure how to really go about this. I was watching television today and was frustrated with Stephen Harper commenting on the bailout of Canadian auto companies. The most frustrating statement was something along the lines of how we are following the American government into a bailout package. So basically this tends to add credibility to my belief that Harper's government is just a Canadian Neo-Con rip off of the current GOP. It completely baffles me why so many of my baby boomer elders would vote for a government that just trails behind a completely failed and flawed leadership.

Maybe some day a wiser, older, educated individual can explain to me why these supposed capitalist/conservative governments are our best hope. It is a sad state of affairs when our tax payers money winds up feeding the rich. The government wants us to believe this is some sort of a stimulus package, but in truth it is just the laundering of stolen taxpayer money. If you want to stimulate the economy, pass the $ on to the consumer, not the people who still hold billions of dollars.

Conveniently all this craziness just occurs during the transfer of power happening in the States. So even civil unrest is cast aside because people are heartened by the idea of a new progressive government that is emerging. And yes, it is great that people have decided to choose a progressive government, however it is very sad, that an old government will never be held accountable for the crimes that have been committed. My only hope is that as a Canadian, our own government will get caught in their act of emulating an American doctrine... however naive that view truly is.