I never had the pleasure of meeting Frank Boccia in person, but I grew to have a deep and profound respect for the man. We became "virtual" friends on the internet, via Facebook, once Frank and I realized how many interests we seemed to have in common. We both loved and pampered our dogs. Frank spoiled Mr. Smith rotten, but I'm no one to talk. When I eat steak, so do my furry babies, sliced on top of their kibble. We're both patriotic Americans and published authors of nonfiction books -- Frank's story was an exceptionally interesting and powerful one. He survived a literal hell on earth, and somehow managed to walk away from Dong Ap Bia, the infamous "Hamburger Hill" battle in Vietnam. Frank was a true American hero. Frank saw the senseless, savage brutality of war, up close and personal. However, his most serious wounds from the war were invisible -- Frank's psyche had been damaged by the carnage he witnessed. After the war Frank struggled to understand how he had cheated death, when so many friends and other good men had not been so lucky. America didn't treat our fighting men as heroes returning from the field of battle after Vietnam. For the most part, we treated those who fought and died for us like dirt. About his book Frank said, "I want to convey the real face of war, both its mindless carnage and its nobility of spirit. Above all, I want to convey what happened to both the casual reader and the military historian and make them aware of the extraordinary spirit of the men of First Platoon, Bravo Company. They were ordinary men doing extraordinary … [Read more...]
David Cohen’s appeal to authority
David Cohen is (allegedly) a Constitutional law professor at Drexel University in Philadelphia, the very city where the Declaration of Independence was penned in the days leading to July 4th, 1776, Why someone would pay this man to teach law students about the Constitution is beyond me, because the drastic solution he proposes won't solve the problem he thinks is epidemic -- gun violence. In a recent op-ed published in Rolling Stone magazine, Mr. Cohen argued for the repeal of the 2nd Amendment on the grounds that the Founding Fathers "got it wrong" when they granted ordinary citizens the right to bear arms (radical liberals: 'bear arms' means the right to own a gun.) Mr. Cohen began his embarrassing article with the somewhat pompous declaration, "I teach the Constitution for a living." This statement is intended to imply to Mr. Cohen's audience that he possesses superior knowledge about the Constitution, even to the Founding Fathers (implied by his "correcting" them and identifying things he claims were mistakes in the original document, and only in his own mind, of course) -- an appeal to establish his opinion as authority - which by doing with his very first words, commits a logical fallacy. Mr. Cohen continues: "I revere the document when it is used to further social justice and make our country a more inclusive one. I admire the Founders for establishing a representative democracy that has survived for over two centuries. But sometimes we just have to acknowledge that the Founders and the Constitution are wrong. What is this nonsense about social justice? … [Read more...]
Radical liberals and the rights of others
Before I say the first word about politics, I need to be clear that I'm neither a registered Democrat or Republican; I am a independent voter who holds both political parties in pretty much equal disdain. They don't even bother trying to represent me in Washington. I'd love to be able to think of myself as a liberal -- it sounds wonderful, at least in principle. Some of the synonyms for the word 'liberal' are generous, abundant, copious, and plentiful. And of course, the antonyms for liberal include intolerant, stingy, narrow-minded, mean, and greedy. Really...who wants to be thought of as mean, or intolerant? I certainly don't. But the problem with self-identifying as a liberal is that the political ideology and the dictionary definition of the word appear to have very little in common with each other. Now people who know me personally know that I'm not really a confrontational sort of person, but neither am I the "go along to get along" sort of person, either. I'm about ten times more likely to initiate a conversation about the upcoming football season for the Georgia Bulldogs than politics or religion, but I'm also not shy about expressing my opinions or correcting the record whenever it seems necessary. I have this very annoying tendency of stubbornly refusing to concede that I could be wrong about something in lieu of better evidence. I'm also very unlikely to simply take your word for anything if the argument from authority has been invoked. Naturally, being radically liberal is a political orientation, not a religious one. It has been my experience … [Read more...]
Demonic possession
The material world is often called the "real" world by strict materialists, who believe anything and everything can be explained away as natural phenomena. In the mind of a strict materialist, a personal experience with ghosts must be explainable as either an optical illusion or figment of the imagination, but never as the disembodied mind or spirit of a dead person, no matter what sort of evidence has been offered. Strict materialists don't believe in God, Satan, angels, demons, ghosts, or any other type of supernatural phenomena. I do, but I would never dream of trying to convince a strict materialist that Scott Patterson's ghost story was true. I wasn't there. I wouldn't even try to convince a strict materialist that my own personal ghost stories are true. Although the experiences documented in my writing constituted empirical evidence of supernatural phenomena collected via the scientific method, they are merely anecdotes to any third parties. It is rational, and logical to immediately seek a "natural" explanation for an inexplicable...until you run out of possible explanations that don't defy all logic and reason. All I would say to the strict materialist is this: when you run out of other options to explain some phenomena, leave open the possibility of a supernatural explanation. Don't completely rule out anything without evidence, or a better explanation. Even though Jesus implies that ghosts exist in the Bible when he differentiates between the characteristics of a ghost to his resurrected form, the strict materialist will not accept that as legitimate … [Read more...]