Free Republic 2nd Quarter Fundraising Target: $85,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $20,554
24%  
Woo hoo!! And the first 24% is in!! Thank you all very much!!

Posts by Lucky Dog

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • Youth More Likely to Be Bullied at Schools With Anti-Bullying Programs

    09/13/2013 4:39:45 PM PDT · 24 of 31
    Lucky Dog to aimhigh

    BTTT

  • Youth More Likely to Be Bullied at Schools With Anti-Bullying Programs

    09/13/2013 4:39:15 PM PDT · 23 of 31
    Lucky Dog to aimhigh

    BTTT

  • New rifle mimics machine gun's rapid fire -- and it's legal (here comes the media)

    09/12/2013 6:05:15 AM PDT · 5 of 57
    Lucky Dog to Red in Blue PA

    What are the legal implications of a “limited round” magazine several states have imposed when talking about a “belt” fed weapon?

  • The Real Republican Adversary? Population Density

    09/04/2013 5:48:04 AM PDT · 10 of 27
    Lucky Dog to M. Dodge Thomas
    When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become as corrupt as Europe.

    Thomas Jefferson
  • The Creator's Creation

    08/21/2012 4:34:43 AM PDT · 2 of 5
    Lucky Dog to Former Fetus

    Highest peak on the East Coast? Isn’t it Mount Mitchell, NC?

  • 'Britain's Atlantis' found at bottom of North sea

    07/06/2012 5:26:23 AM PDT · 7 of 29
    Lucky Dog to Dysart

    It was all those Celts driving their SUV’s to visit Mickey and Minney Mammoth land. Added to this was all of the polution from the flint axe and knife factories. These sources poluted so much that the ice caps melted... There you have it: Al Globull Warming hockey stick curve proof... /s

  • 'Britain's Atlantis' found at bottom of North sea

    07/06/2012 5:26:15 AM PDT · 6 of 29
    Lucky Dog to Dysart

    It was all those Celts driving their SUV’s to visit Mickey and Minney Mammoth land. Added to this was all of the polution from the flint axe and knife factories. These sources poluted so much that the ice caps melted... There you have it: Al Globull Warming hockey stick curve proof... /s

  • STUPID IN AMERICA (Sunday on FNC at 9pm EST)

    12/21/2011 2:46:50 PM PST · 24 of 25
    Lucky Dog to FreeKeys

    BTTT

  • Senate Repeals Bans on Sodomy and Bestiality in the Military

    12/02/2011 4:11:02 PM PST · 35 of 45
    Lucky Dog to OL Hickory

    BTTT

  • State destroyed key records in Kansas Planned Parenthood case (Sibelius Supports Abortion)

    10/24/2011 5:23:36 AM PDT · 5 of 12
    Lucky Dog to x_plus_one
    Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

    Lord Acton, Letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton, 1887
  • Court to hear arguments on gays in military (the ultimate in "lose-lose")

    09/02/2011 7:10:43 PM PDT · 7 of 7
    Lucky Dog to freedomwarrior998
    I wish it were that simple, and I wish you were right...

    In the past, the courts have been deferential to the power granted to Congress to regulate the military. Additionally, there has been a recognition that civilian "rights" are limited in the military environment.

    I agree with your analysis that sodomy within the ranks will seriously degrade our military capability. I hope that this travesty can be stopped.
  • Court to hear arguments on gays in military (the ultimate in "lose-lose")

    09/01/2011 9:59:41 AM PDT · 4 of 7
    Lucky Dog to markomalley
    At issue is the repeal of Section 654 of Title X of the U.S. Code. This law, on the books since 1993, states (in part):

    "The presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability."

    Repeal of the 1993 law noted above did not repeal the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).

    The UCMJ was passed by Congress on 5 May 1950, signed into law by President Harry S. Truman, and became effective on 31 May 1951.

    Uniform Code of Military Justice [excerpted]:

    Article 125.

    “(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration, however slight, is sufficient 
to complete the offense.

    (b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall by punished as a court-martial may direct.”


    The oath taken by every president on first entering office is specified in Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution:

    I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. [emphasis added]

    US Constitution [excerpted]

    Article I

    Section. 8.

    Clause 14: [The Congress shall have Power] To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

    Note that Congress has prohibited sodomy in the military through the UCMJ. All of the extraneous uproar concerning the repeal of the 1993 law is just that unless Congress takes the additional action of changing the UCMJ. Military commanders, including the “Commander-in-Chief,” are obligated by their oaths of office to enforce the rules and regulations made pursuant to laws (UCMJ) promulgated by Congress for the US military.

    Without a change to the UCMJ eliminating the prohibition on sodomy, it appears the policy will revert to that which existed before 1993. Homosexual practitioners, if discovered (provably) engaging in sodomy, will be subject to court-martial. Consequently, the only way this situation can be averted is for the Commander-in-Chief to violate his oath to support the Constitution and issue illegal orders not to enforce the UCMJ.
  • Court orders immediate halt to gay military ban

    07/06/2011 1:43:07 PM PDT · 14 of 38
    Lucky Dog to Red Badger
    At issue is the repeal of Section 654 of Title X of the U.S. Code. This law, on the books since 1993, states (in part): "The presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability."

    Repeal of the 1993 law noted above did not repeal the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).

    The UCMJ was passed by Congress on 5 May 1950, signed into law by President Harry S. Truman, and became effective on 31 May 1951.

    Uniform Code of Military Justice [excerpted]:

    Article 125.

    “(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration, however slight, is sufficient 
to complete the offense.

    (b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall by punished as a court-martial may direct.”


    The oath taken by every president on first entering office is specified in Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution:

    I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. [emphasis added]

    US Constitution [excerpted]

    Article I

    Section. 8.

    Clause 14: [The Congress shall have Power] To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

    Note that Congress has prohibited sodomy in the military through the UCMJ. All of the extraneous uproar concerning the repeal of the 1993 law is just that unless Congress takes the additional action of changing the UCMJ. Military commanders, including the “Commander-in-Chief,” are obligated by their oaths of office to enforce the rules and regulations made pursuant to laws (UCMJ) promulgated by Congress for the US military.

    Without a change to the UCMJ eliminating the prohibition on sodomy, it appears the policy will revert to that which existed before 1993. Homosexual practitioners, if discovered (provably) engaging in sodomy, will be subject to court-martial. Consequently, the only way this situation can be averted is for the Commander-in-Chief to violate his oath to support the Constitution and issue illegal orders not to enforce the UCMJ.
  • I, Global Warming Skeptic

    06/26/2011 3:23:19 PM PDT · 8 of 14
    Lucky Dog to LiberConservative
    Here are some suggestions:

    Use your search engine of choice to look up the “Vostok ice core.” You will note in the analysis, the proxy indicators used for climate measures in this ice core, that interglacial periods occur, roughly, about every 100,000 years with other changes on other periodic bases of about every 26,000 years, etc.

    Next use your search engine to look up Milankovitch cycles. These astronomical phenomena that have roughly corresponding time cycles noted to occur in the Vostok ice core.

    Next use your search engine to look up the thermometer. Your will note that accurate instruments (and that is a generous assessment) have only existed for a few hundred years. (Some could argue that accurate instruments have existed for less than a century on wide-spread basis.) Barometers, another staple of weather instruments, have a similar time of existence. Anemometers, rain gauges, etc. all follow a similar path as far length of existence is concerned.

    Additionally, you will note that nothing approaching comprehensive, systematically catalogued, “global” climate/weather measures existed prior to the “age of aviation.” Furthermore, you will, also, note that, as a generality, only where there were aviation (or occasionally, nautical) requirements were these measures captured.

    Next consult any basic statistics book on sampling methodology. You will find that samples that can accurately, mathematically characterize a phenomenon must be randomly distributed throughout the time frame of the phenomenon of interest. Additionally, you will note the minimum number of samples required must increase considerably as the fidelity required to construct a reasonably predictive model of the phenomenon increases.

    Aviation, on a global basis, is not yet a century old. Magellan’s voyage of circumnavigation is less than 5 centuries old. Even assuming that comprehensive and accurate global climate measures were captured from that time to this (obviously they weren’t), the question becomes from a sampling methodology perspective, is that enough to be able to characterize a climate cycle of 100,000 years?

    Is “real,” long-term, global warming occurring or are random fluctuations within the normal range of variation being observed?

    The proof is left to the reader.
  • HUD's FAIR HOUSING CAMPAIGN ... LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL AND TRANSGENDER ... (official press release)

    04/10/2011 10:08:10 AM PDT · 11 of 21
    Lucky Dog to 30Moves

    The issue, succinctly stated, is simply, whether, or not, a self-generated, public pronouncement of a private sexual behavior should be entitled under law to special preference in housing or employment considerations. Furthermore, the indicated sexual behavior provides no objective benefit to the individual, those potentially forced to act in deference to such a pronouncement, or to society in general. Additionally, the indicated sexual behavior statistically drives up health care costs, which are a major concern to employers and the state.

    Homosexuality is defined by behavior, i.e., unless one engages in sexual activity with a member of the same sex, he, or she, is not a homosexual. (According to the American Psychological Association [APA] the term, sexual orientation, is a description of feelings.) Feelings do not control the behavior of a mentally healthy, adult human being.

    Any human behavior (not driven by autonomic or instinctual responses) that is not voluntary is, by definition, a psychosis.

    Therefore, homosexual behavior is either a voluntary choice or a psychosis.

    If homosexual behavior is a voluntary choice, then it is subject to the same types of societal regulations, i.e., laws, social stigma, etc., as is any other sexual behavior such as pedophilia, prostitution, polygamy, etc. Furthermore, if homosexual behavior is voluntary, it has no more claim to special rights or considerations than does pedophilia, prostitution, polygamy, etc., i.e., none.

    If homosexual behavior is a psychosis, then it is validly subject to treatment and possible cure, just as are nymphomania, drug addiction, etc.

    The potentially negative impacts of homosexual behavior on employer health care costs are statistically well established. Forcing employers to knowingly hire individuals who voluntarily engage in high-risk behavior drives up the cost of providing health care coverage to the employer. The employer who is mandated by law to make such hires, must then decide whether to lower or eliminate health care benefits to all other employees to accommodate the potentially increased costs of the high risk behavior group.

    In summary, a clear definition of homosexuality combined with statistically valid, medical information establishes that such behavior is economically detrimental to any employer who includes health care coverage as an employee benefit. Furthermore, the increased costs of employers dropping significant amounts of employee health care to Medicare and Medicaid or other government sponsored health care would make such a move extremely detrimental to the state and all of its taxpayers. Therefore, it is unwise, completely apart from any religious, moral or emotional arguments, for any state to allow any of its subordinate governmental entities to change current discrimination protections to include homosexual practitioners as a protected class.

  • Tennessee House Member Files Constitutional Amendment to Fight ObamaCare

    02/17/2011 4:55:02 PM PST · 1 of 4
    Lucky Dog
    Just in case the courts dally too long or
  • Problems relating to removing gays from the military and Social Security (Welfare abuses) {Vanity}

    01/03/2011 4:22:03 AM PST · 5 of 16
    Lucky Dog to markomalley
    At issue is the repeal of Section 654 of Title X of the U.S. Code. This law, on the books since 1993, states (in part): "The presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability."

    Repeal of the 1993 law noted above did not repeal the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).

    The UCMJ was passed by Congress on 5 May 1950, signed into law by President Harry S. Truman, and became effective on 31 May 1951.

    Uniform Code of Military Justice [excerpted]:

    Article 125.

    “(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration, however slight, is sufficient 
to complete the offense.

    (b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall by punished as a court-martial may direct.”


    The oath taken by every president on first entering office is specified in Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution:

    I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. [emphasis added]

    US Constitution [excerpted]

    Article I

    Section. 8.

    Clause 14: [The Congress shall have Power] To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

    Note that Congress has prohibited sodomy in the military through the UCMJ. All of the extraneous uproar concerning the repeal of the 1993 law is just that unless Congress takes the additional action of changing the UCMJ. Military commanders, including the “Commander-in-Chief,” are obligated by their oaths of office to enforce the rules and regulations made pursuant to laws (UCMJ) promulgated by Congress for the US military.

    The foundation of US military law was the British Articles of War. In fact, our first military justice codes, the American Articles of War and Articles for the Government of the Navy, predate the US Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

    From the 1749 Royal Navy Articles of War [excerpted]:

    If any person in the fleet shall commit the unnatural and detestable sin of buggery and sodomy with man or beast, he shall be punished with death by the sentence of a court martial.

    The act of sodomy has been condemned in various legal codes for more than 3,500 years. Specifically, English language, military justice codes have criminalized sodomy for hundreds of years. This prohibition is, and, has been, in place for good reason.

    Sodomy is morally and religiously offensive, if not repugnant, to the overwhelming majority of the military’s population as well as the civil populace. Consequently, allowing the unrestricted practice of sodomy within the ranks of any military organization would be detrimental to the good order and discipline, hence military effectiveness, of that group.

    As a result, condoning the open practice of sodomy is extremely unwise militarily, completely apart from any religious or other aspects. However, there are other practical reasons for prohibiting the practice of sodomy with the military.

    The military serves as its own blood bank. Consequently, any contaminant to the blood supply in an organization that potentially requires massive quantities is incredibly unwise.

    According to the FDA: "[homosexual practitioners or 'gay' men] have an HIV prevalence 60 times higher than the general population, 800 times higher than first-time blood donors and 8,000 times higher than repeat blood donors."

    The FDA further warns: "[homosexual practitioners or 'gay' men] also have an increased risk of having other infections that can be transmitted to others by blood transfusion. For example, infection with the Hepatitis B virus is about 5-6 times more common, and Hepatitis C virus infections are about 2 times more common in "homosexual practitioners than in the general population."

    A 2007 CDC study found that, although "gay" men comprise only 1-to-2 percent of the population, they account for an epidemic 64 percent of all syphilis cases.

    Some proponents have attempted to disguise the issue of sodomy by using the term sexual preference. According the APA, sexual preference is a term that refers only to feelings. No one can know the sexual preference of another human being unless that person engages in some behavior that reveals such. All behavior by mentally competent adults, especially in a military setting, is subject to regulation. Currently, lawful regulations (UCMJ Art. 125) exist that prohibit homosexual behavior in these settings.

    Homosexuality is defined by behavior, i.e., unless one engages in sexual activity with a member of the same sex, he, or she, is not a homosexual. (As previously noted, the term sexual orientation is a description of feelings.) Feelings do not control the voluntary behavior of a mentally healthy, adult human being.

    If homosexual behavior is a voluntary choice, then it is subject to the same types of societal (whether civil or military) regulations, i.e., laws, social stigma, etc., as is any other sexual behavior such as pedophilia, prostitution, polygamy, etc. Furthermore, if homosexual behavior is voluntary, it has no more claim to special rights or considerations than does pedophilia, prostitution, polygamy, etc., i.e., none.

    If homosexual behavior is a psychosis rather than a voluntary choice, then it is validly subject to treatment and possible cure, just as are nymphomania, drug addiction, etc.

    As an added consideration, there is the argument of Darwinian selection: survival of the fittest. Homosexual individuals are incapable of reproduction if they are exclusively homosexual. (If these individuals do not practice exclusively homosexual activity, then, by definition, they can choose not to be homosexual… and the issue is, again, defined as a voluntary, behavioral choice.)

    By the principles of genetics, exclusively homosexual practitioners would cause such types of individuals to appear in the population at no greater rate than that of other genetic disorders which prevent their victims from procreating, e.g., Hutchinson–Gilford progeria syndrome, not the currently observed proportion of the population.

    Given that the observed homosexual practitioner proportion of the population is around 2% or 3% rather than a small fraction of 1%, homosexuality does not fit the criteria for a genetic source. Once again, the logical conclusion is that homosexual behavior is a voluntary choice.

    Without a change to the UCMJ eliminating the prohibition on sodomy, it appears the policy will revert to that which existed before 1993. Homosexual practitioners, if discovered (provably) engaging in sodomy, will be subject to court-martial. Consequently, there will be no time required for the troops to “get used to the change.” The only way this situation can be averted is for the Commander-in-Chief to violate his oath to support the Constitution and issue illegal orders not to enforce the UCMJ.
  • Don't Ask Don't Tell Repeal a Mistake

    12/27/2010 7:57:36 AM PST · 14 of 34
    Lucky Dog to jagusafr
    Good morning Colonel,

    Consider the argument below as proof that there is no "gay" gene. Additionally, even if there such a thing, it is still no excuse for homosexual behavior.

    Homosexuality is defined by behavior, i.e., unless one engages in sexual activity with a member of the same sex, he, or she, is not a homosexual. (The term sexual orientation, as officially defined by the APA, is a description of feelings.) Feelings do not control the voluntary behavior of any mentally healthy, adult human being.

    If homosexual behavior is a voluntary choice, then it is subject to the same types of societal (whether civil or military) regulations, i.e., laws, social stigma, etc., as is any other sexual behavior such as pedophilia, prostitution, polygamy, etc. Furthermore, if homosexual behavior is voluntary, it has no more claim to special rights or considerations than does pedophilia, prostitution, polygamy, etc., i.e., none.

    If homosexual behavior is a psychosis rather than a voluntary choice, then it is validly subject to treatment and possible cure, just as are nymphomania, drug addiction, etc.

    As an added consideration, there is the argument of Darwinian selection: survival of the fittest. Homosexual individuals are incapable of reproduction if they are exclusively homosexual. (If these individuals do not practice exclusively homosexual activity, then, by definition, they can choose not to be homosexual… and the issue is, again, defined as a voluntary, behavioral choice.)

    By the principles of genetics, exclusively homosexual practitioners would cause such types of individuals to appear in the population at no greater rate than that of other genetic disorders which prevent their victims from procreating, e.g., Hutchinson–Gilford progeria syndrome, not the currently observed proportion of the population.

    Given that the observed homosexual practitioner proportion of the population is around 2% or 3% rather than a small fraction of 1%, homosexuality does not fit the criteria for a genetic source. Once again, the logical conclusion is that homosexual behavior is a voluntary choice.

    All voluntary behavior is subject to legal restriction within the constraints of our Constitution. Therefore, unless there is a claim that that homosexual behavior is a Constitutionally protected right, it is subject to lawful control, especially in the military.

    Additionally, even if it were successfully alleged to be a Constitutional right such as is "freedom of speech," it is still subject to constraint, e.g., one has no freedom of speech to falsely yell "fire" in a crowded theater. Similarly, military members are not legally allowed to make publicly "disparaging remarks" about, nor hold up to ridicule, elected officials.
  • Don't Ask Don't Tell Repeal a Mistake

    12/27/2010 7:57:30 AM PST · 13 of 34
    Lucky Dog to jagusafr
    Good morning Colonel,

    Consider the argument below as proof that there is no "gay" gene. Additionally, even if there such a thing, it is still no excuse for homosexual behavior.

    Homosexuality is defined by behavior, i.e., unless one engages in sexual activity with a member of the same sex, he, or she, is not a homosexual. (The term sexual orientation, as officially defined by the APA, is a description of feelings.) Feelings do not control the voluntary behavior of any mentally healthy, adult human being.

    If homosexual behavior is a voluntary choice, then it is subject to the same types of societal (whether civil or military) regulations, i.e., laws, social stigma, etc., as is any other sexual behavior such as pedophilia, prostitution, polygamy, etc. Furthermore, if homosexual behavior is voluntary, it has no more claim to special rights or considerations than does pedophilia, prostitution, polygamy, etc., i.e., none.

    If homosexual behavior is a psychosis rather than a voluntary choice, then it is validly subject to treatment and possible cure, just as are nymphomania, drug addiction, etc.

    As an added consideration, there is the argument of Darwinian selection: survival of the fittest. Homosexual individuals are incapable of reproduction if they are exclusively homosexual. (If these individuals do not practice exclusively homosexual activity, then, by definition, they can choose not to be homosexual… and the issue is, again, defined as a voluntary, behavioral choice.)

    By the principles of genetics, exclusively homosexual practitioners would cause such types of individuals to appear in the population at no greater rate than that of other genetic disorders which prevent their victims from procreating, e.g., Hutchinson–Gilford progeria syndrome, not the currently observed proportion of the population.

    Given that the observed homosexual practitioner proportion of the population is around 2% or 3% rather than a small fraction of 1%, homosexuality does not fit the criteria for a genetic source. Once again, the logical conclusion is that homosexual behavior is a voluntary choice.

    All voluntary behavior is subject to legal restriction within the constraints of our Constitution. Therefore, unless there is a claim that that homosexual behavior is a Constitutionally protected right, it is subject to lawful control, especially in the military.

    Additionally, even if it were successfully alleged to be a Constitutional right such as is "freedom of speech," it is still subject to constraint, e.g., one has no freedom of speech to falsely yell "fire" in a crowded theater. Similarly, military members are not legally allowed to make publicly "disparaging remarks" about, nor hold up to ridicule, elected officials.
  • State Rep.-Elect Ragan shares Christmas thoughts

    12/23/2010 4:00:53 AM PST · 1 of 2
    Lucky Dog
  • How to Fix Repeal of DADT: A new Commander in Chief (Simple as that)

    12/19/2010 6:48:04 PM PST · 101 of 120
    Lucky Dog to OldDeckHand
    Perhaps, you have missed the forest for the trees...

    The hypothetical was to demonstrate that Congress can control what court hears what type of case and, even, whether said court can exist (excepting the Supreme Court and its original jurisdiction).

    I assume you concede this fact as you have failed to rebut it.

  • How to Fix Repeal of DADT: A new Commander in Chief (Simple as that)

    12/19/2010 6:03:24 PM PST · 98 of 120
    Lucky Dog to OldDeckHand
    Perhaps a hypothetical will demonstrate the point, here: Congress passes laws that disestablish all courts below the Supreme Court. Congress then passes a law that reinstates the prohibition against homosexual behavior and exempts such from any judicial review.

    There would be no lower courts to hear the case and apply any precedent. Beyond the law being "exempted," the Supreme Court could not hear the case as it is not within their "original jurisdiction."

    State courts cannot overrule federal statutes unless you are willing concede a doctrine called "nullification." That doctrine is problematic, to say the least.

    What say you to this "hypothetical?"
  • How to Fix Repeal of DADT: A new Commander in Chief (Simple as that)

    12/19/2010 5:15:04 PM PST · 92 of 120
    Lucky Dog to OldDeckHand
    I suggest that the quoted portions (below and in previous posts) of the founding document of our Republic are definitive on the issue. Your assertions are not founded in these quotes. Therefore, they are not ultimately authoritative.

    Please note that the Constitution draws no distinctions between civil, criminal, or military cases/courts. All courts except the Supreme Court are established at the behest and with the approval of Congress, and, only, Congress.

    US Constitution

    Article. III.

    Section. 1.

    The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish...

    Section. 2.

    Clause 2: In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make. [emphasis added]

    Note: these are not my facts.
  • How to Fix Repeal of DADT: A new Commander in Chief (Simple as that)

    12/19/2010 4:42:11 PM PST · 88 of 120
    Lucky Dog to OldDeckHand
    Perhaps we have a failure to communicate, here.

    I think that you interpreted my objection to your assertion as a failure to consult your references. Let me assure you that such was not the case.

    Rather, I was pointing out that precedent as you cited it can be completely excluded by Congress.

    The quotes I cited, showed that Congress has the power to exclude anything other than "original jurisdiction" cases in the Supreme Court from all other courts as it chooses. In fact, Congress can abolish all courts except the Supreme Court, alter their procedures, exclude issues and laws or otherwise limit their jurisdictions as it sees fit.

    The UCMJ was not specified in the Constitution as an "original jurisdiction" of the Supreme Court.

  • How to Fix Repeal of DADT: A new Commander in Chief (Simple as that)

    12/19/2010 4:21:21 PM PST · 80 of 120
    Lucky Dog to OldDeckHand
    It was not a civil case.

    It was not a military law case.
  • How to Fix Repeal of DADT: A new Commander in Chief (Simple as that)

    12/19/2010 4:15:08 PM PST · 78 of 120
    Lucky Dog to OldDeckHand
    Here you go:

    The UCMJ is fully reviewable by the US Supreme Court, and its subordinate Courts.

    US Constitution

    Article. III.

    Section. 2.

    Clause 2: In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make. [emphasis added]

    Note: these are not my facts.

    I think your assertion is flawed... what do you think?
  • How to Fix Repeal of DADT: A new Commander in Chief (Simple as that)

    12/19/2010 3:39:30 PM PST · 71 of 120
    Lucky Dog to C210N; OldDeckHand
    US Constitution

    Section. 8.

    Clause 14: [ The Congress shall have Power] To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;


    The courts have always given deference to the Congress in regulating the military. The Lawrence case was purely civil in nature and does not apply in any way to the military. Additionally, if Congress so chooses, it can completely bar civil courts, even the Supreme Court, from ruling on any issue other than the Supreme Court's "original jurisdiction" specified directly in the Constitution.

    Article. III.

    Section. 1.

    The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish...
  • How to Fix Repeal of DADT: A new Commander in Chief (Simple as that)

    12/19/2010 2:10:21 PM PST · 42 of 120
    Lucky Dog to C210N
    You are mistaken...

    Repeal of the law noted above does not repeal the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).

    The UCMJ was passed by Congress on 5 May 1950, signed into law by President Harry S. Truman, and became effective on 31 May 1951.

    Article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice:

    “(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration, however slight, is sufficient 
to complete the offense.

    (b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall by punished as a court-martial may direct.”

  • Senate Repeals ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’

    12/19/2010 5:17:36 AM PST · 72 of 79
    Lucky Dog to Texas Fossil
    At issue is a pending vote in the Senate on repealing Section 654 of Title X of the U.S. Code. This law, on the books since 1993, states: "The presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability."

    Repeal of the law as noted above does not repeal the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).

    The UCMJ was passed by Congress on 5 May 1950, signed into law by President Harry S. Truman, and became effective on 31 May 1951.

    Article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice:

    “(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration, however slight, is sufficient 
to complete the offense.

    (b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall by punished as a court-martial may direct.”

    The oath taken by every president on first entering office is specified in Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution:

    I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.

    US Constitution

    Section. 8.

    Clause 14:
    [ The Congress shall have Power] To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;


    Note that Congress has prohibited sodomy in the military through the UCMJ. All of the hoopla concerning the 1993 law is just that. Commanders, including the “Commander-in-Chief,” are obligated by their sacred oaths to enforce the rules and regulations made and promulgated by Congress for the US military.

    What remains to be seen is whether the current “Commander-in-Chief” will adhere to his oath and require subordinate officers to do the same.
  • Gays in the Military (by Lt. Col. Oliver North)

    12/19/2010 4:55:04 AM PST · 62 of 72
    Lucky Dog to Army Air Corps
    At issue is a pending vote in the Senate on repealing Section 654 of Title X of the U.S. Code. This law, on the books since 1993, states: "The presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability."

    Repeal of the law as noted above does not repeal the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).

    The UCMJ was passed by Congress on 5 May 1950, signed into law by President Harry S. Truman, and became effective on 31 May 1951.

    Article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice:

    “(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration, however slight, is sufficient 
to complete the offense.

    (b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall by punished as a court-martial may direct.”

    The oath taken by every president on first entering office is specified in Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution:

    I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.

    US Constitution

    Section. 8.

    Clause 14:
    [ The Congress shall have Power] To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;


    Note that Congress has prohibited sodomy in the military through the UCMJ. All of the hoopla concerning the 1993 law is just that. Commanders, including the “Commander-in-Chief,” are obligated by their sacred oaths to enforce the rules and regulations made and promulgated by Congress for the US military.

    What remains to be seen is whether the current “Commander-in-Chief” will adhere to his oath and require subordinate officers to do the same.
  • Snowe Vows Support For DADT Repeal, Improves Chances of Senate Passage

    12/16/2010 7:24:22 AM PST · 37 of 43
    Lucky Dog to Gene Eric
    The foundation of US military law was the British Articles of War. In fact, our first military justice codes, the American Articles of War and Articles for the Government of the Navy, predates the US Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

    From the 1749 Royal Navy Articles of War:

    If any person in the fleet shall commit the unnatural and detestable sin of buggery and sodomy with man or beast, he shall be punished with death by the sentence of a court martial.

    The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) was passed by Congress on 5 May 1950, signed into law by President Harry S. Truman, and became effective on 31 May 1951.

    Article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice:

    “(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration, however slight, is sufficient 
to complete the offense.

    (b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall by punished as a court-martial may direct.”

    The act of sodomy has been condemned in legal codes for more than 3,500 years. Specifically, English language, military justice codes have criminalized sodomy for hundreds of years. This prohibition is, and, has been, in place for good reason.

    Sodomy is morally offensive, if not repugnant, to the overwhelming majority of the military’s population as well as the civil populace. Consequently, allowing the unrestricted practice of sodomy within the ranks of any military organization would be detrimental to the good order and discipline, hence military effectiveness, of that group.

    As a result, condoning the open practice of sodomy is militarily stupid, completely apart from any religious or other aspects. However, there are other practical reasons for prohibiting the practice of sodomy with the military.

    The military serves as its own blood bank. Consequently, any contaminant to the blood supply in an organization that potentially requires massive quantities is incredibly unwise.

    According to the FDA: "[ homosexual practitioner or 'gay' men] have an HIV prevalence 60 times higher than the general population, 800 times higher than first-time blood donors and 8,000 times higher than repeat blood donors."

    The FDA further warns: "[ homosexual practitioner or 'gay' men] also have an increased risk of having other infections that can be transmitted to others by blood transfusion. For example, infection with the Hepatitis B virus is about 5-6 times more common, and Hepatitis C virus infections are about 2 times more common in "homosexual practitioners than in the general population."

    A 2007 CDC study found that, although "gay" men comprise only 1-to-2 percent of the population, they account for an epidemic 64 percent of all syphilis cases.
  • Snowe Vows Support For DADT Repeal, Improves Chances of Senate Passage

    12/16/2010 7:24:18 AM PST · 36 of 43
    Lucky Dog to Gene Eric
    The foundation of US military law was the British Articles of War. In fact, our first military justice codes, the American Articles of War and Articles for the Government of the Navy, predates the US Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

    From the 1749 Royal Navy Articles of War:

    If any person in the fleet shall commit the unnatural and detestable sin of buggery and sodomy with man or beast, he shall be punished with death by the sentence of a court martial.

    The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) was passed by Congress on 5 May 1950, signed into law by President Harry S. Truman, and became effective on 31 May 1951.

    Article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice:

    “(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration, however slight, is sufficient 
to complete the offense.

    (b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall by punished as a court-martial may direct.”

    The act of sodomy has been condemned in legal codes for more than 3,500 years. Specifically, English language, military justice codes have criminalized sodomy for hundreds of years. This prohibition is, and, has been, in place for good reason.

    Sodomy is morally offensive, if not repugnant, to the overwhelming majority of the military’s population as well as the civil populace. Consequently, allowing the unrestricted practice of sodomy within the ranks of any military organization would be detrimental to the good order and discipline, hence military effectiveness, of that group.

    As a result, condoning the open practice of sodomy is militarily stupid, completely apart from any religious or other aspects. However, there are other practical reasons for prohibiting the practice of sodomy with the military.

    The military serves as its own blood bank. Consequently, any contaminant to the blood supply in an organization that potentially requires massive quantities is incredibly unwise.

    According to the FDA: "[ homosexual practitioner or 'gay' men] have an HIV prevalence 60 times higher than the general population, 800 times higher than first-time blood donors and 8,000 times higher than repeat blood donors."

    The FDA further warns: "[ homosexual practitioner or 'gay' men] also have an increased risk of having other infections that can be transmitted to others by blood transfusion. For example, infection with the Hepatitis B virus is about 5-6 times more common, and Hepatitis C virus infections are about 2 times more common in "homosexual practitioners than in the general population."

    A 2007 CDC study found that, although "gay" men comprise only 1-to-2 percent of the population, they account for an epidemic 64 percent of all syphilis cases.
  • Mirthless Military

    12/10/2010 1:04:46 PM PST · 13 of 13
    Lucky Dog to Mister Da
    Every citizen has a right & responsibility to defend this country in a time of crisis.

    You are decidedly incorrect, sir, if your implication is that by a responsibility to defend one's country you are implying that every citizen has a right to be in the armed forces of our country.

    No citizen has a right to serve in the armed forces of the country. Every day, thousands are excluded for medical reasons, prison records, insufficient education, etc.

    Each service sets its own standards for entry based upon its needs.

    Nonetheless, this lack of a right must not to be confused with a responsibility to serve when legally called to do so. A draft is governed by the laws of the land. Every citizen has an obligation to obey the laws properly passed and conforming with our Constitution.

    A draft may be appropriate on the occasions where there is an insufficient number of volunteers within the time frame necessary for appropriate military purposes. However, a draft should only be employed to meet the immediate need for military personnel, not to accomplish some social engineering goal.

    The military's raison d'etre is to "kill people and break things," i.e., to win wars or prevent them by convincing a potential enemy that the cost of attacking our national interests would be too high.

    ...Sexual preference is gonna be irrelevant when the enemy is coming down Main Street.

    Sexual preference is an abused term that refers to feelings. No one can know the sexual preference of another human being unless that person engages in some behavior that reveals such. All behavior by mentally competent adults, especially in a military setting, is subject to regulation. Currently, lawful regulations exist that prohibit homosexual behavior in these settings.

    Such regulations have been in place for hundreds of years with good reason. Homosexual behavior is detrimental to good order and discipline just as is theft, fighting the ranks, ignoring lawful orders and a host of other behaviors.

    It matters not whether an enemy is coming down Main Street or across any other battlefield.

    Victory against any competent military foe would be more by luck than by design, if that enemy is opposed with anything other than a well trained, well equipped, well lead and cohesive fighting force.

  • Obama on Homosexuality: ‘I Don’t Think It’s a Choice’.

    10/14/2010 6:31:52 PM PDT · 48 of 137
    Lucky Dog to Aria

    See post 35.

  • Obama on Homosexuality: ‘I Don’t Think It’s a Choice’.

    10/14/2010 6:03:00 PM PDT · 35 of 137
    Lucky Dog to skeeter; Nachum
    The issue, succinctly stated, is simply that the existence, or lack thereof, of a “gay” or “homosexual” gene (or any other inborn proclivity) as it may, or may not, influence sexual orientation is completely immaterial to any discussion concerning homosexual behavior.

    Homosexuality is defined by behavior, i.e., unless one engages in sexual activity with a member of the same sex, he, or she, is not a homosexual. (The term sexual orientation is a description of feelings.) Feelings do not control the behavior of a mentally healthy adult human being.

    Any human behavior (not driven by autonomic or instinctual responses) that is not voluntary is, by definition, a psychosis.

    Therefore, homosexual behavior is either a voluntary choice or a psychosis.

    If homosexual behavior is a voluntary choice, then it is subject to the same types of societal regulations, i.e., laws, social stigma, etc., as is any other sexual behavior such as pedophilia, prostitution, polygamy, etc. Furthermore, if homosexual behavior is voluntary, it has no more claim to special rights or considerations than does pedophilia, prostitution, polygamy, etc., i.e., none.

    If homosexual behavior is a psychosis, then it is validly subject to treatment and possible cure, just as are nymphomania, drug addiction, etc.

    As an added consideration, there is the argument of Darwinian selection: survival of the fittest. Homosexual individuals are incapable of reproduction if they are exclusively homosexual. (If these individuals do not practice exclusively homosexual activity, then, by definition, they can choose not to be homosexual… and the issue is, again, defined as a behavioral choice.)

    By the principles of genetics, exclusively homosexual practitioners would cause such types of individuals to appear in the population at no greater rate than that of other genetic disorders which prevent their victims from procreating, not the currently observed proportion of the population, e.g., Hutchinson–Gilford progeria syndrome.

    Given that the observed homosexual practitioner proportion of the population is around 2% or 3% rather than a small fraction of 1%, homosexuality does not fit the criteria for a genetic source.

    Once again, U.S. health regulations currently prohibit men who have sex with men (homosexual practitioners – aka "gays") from donating blood. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration studies categorically confirm that if homosexual practitioners were permitted to give blood, the general population would be placed at risk.

    According to the FDA: "[ homosexual practitioner or 'gay' men] have an HIV prevalence 60 times higher than the general population, 800 times higher than first-time blood donors and 8,000 times higher than repeat blood donors."

    The FDA further warns: "[ homosexual practitioner or 'gay' men] also have an increased risk of having other infections that can be transmitted to others by blood transfusion. For example, infection with the Hepatitis B virus is about 5-6 times more common, and Hepatitis C virus infections are about 2 times more common in "homosexual practitioners than in the general population."

    A 2007 CDC study found that, although "gay" men comprise only 1-to-2 percent of the population, they account for an epidemic 64 percent of all syphilis cases.
  • Christopher Hitchens

    10/14/2010 11:24:00 AM PDT · 12 of 45
    Lucky Dog to Kaslin
    One question and one observation for Mr. Hitchens:

    Whence comes creation (all that is and ever was)?

    What is wrong with Pascal's wager? (To paraphrase: If there is no God and I believe, I have lost nothing. However, if there is a God and I do not believe, I have lost everything. Therefore, the one who wagers wisely believes that there is a God.)
  • Panel denies Eldridge right to vote

    07/21/2010 5:26:43 AM PDT · 4 of 5
    Lucky Dog to RebelTXRose
    It is the Republican Party primary to select Republican Party candidates.

    Why should people who are not part of the Republican Party be allowed to vote in that party's process to select its members who will be on the ballot?

    What prevents opponents of the Republican Party from showing up to vote for candidate that they think will be the easiest for their real party (the Democrat Party) to defeat in the general election?
  • Enemies to Our Country in the Classroom

    05/17/2010 12:39:48 PM PDT · 4 of 9
    Lucky Dog to Mobile Vulgus
    These "frail racist white people" better beware of La Raza "forefront of the revolution,"

    Let’s just recall a little history for a few minutes with a random sample of some multiple choice questions:

    1. Who won in the 1500’s?

    A. Those frail white people called Spanish Conquistadors
    B. La Raza

    2. Who won the war for Texas Independence?

    A. Those frail white people called Texans
    B. La Raza

    3. Who won the Mexican-American war in the 1840’s?

    A. Those frail white people called Americans
    B. La Raza

    4. The line in the Marine Battle Hymn that contains the phrase “from the Halls of Montezuma” comes from the triumph of who?

    A. Those frail white people called Americans
    B. La Raza

    5. Who built the most prosperous economy in the world to date?

    A. Those frail white people called Americans
    B. La Raza

    6. Who is the sole super power in the world as of the current date?

    A. Those frail white people called Americans
    B. La Raza

    7. For extra credit, do you see a pattern emerging?

    A. Yes
    B. No

  • Zombie Satellite Causes Astronomical Buzz

    05/11/2010 9:38:55 AM PDT · 24 of 34
    Lucky Dog to raybbr
    The effect is, in deed, typically very small. Nonetheless, it is present and the surface area exposed and length of time for exposure are factors.

    Added to other potential factors it can have a cumulative influence especially in possible, synergistic combination with magnetic or gravity anomalies (e.g., small unobserved asteroid) and other unplanned events, e.g. propellent tank leak, etc.

    The point was that there are a number of potential sources, either singly, or in combination, that can account for orbital drift.
  • Zombie Satellite Causes Astronomical Buzz

    05/11/2010 5:41:36 AM PDT · 16 of 34
    Lucky Dog to Tallguy; raybbr
    OK. Somebody explain how a communication satellite ‘wanders’ from its assigned orbital position? Isn’t Isaac Newton in the driver’s seat?

    Suggest you research solar wind, oblate spheroid shape of the earth, n-body problem, micro-meteors, for starters on your question about Isaac Newton.

    Did it somehow fire a steering thruster when it ‘died’?

    Possible... Additionally, the article uses the term "fried" referring to the controlling hardware/software of the satellite ground control order reception/execution system. This scientific term could have referred to anything from a simple break in a single circuit to a completely melted chip. The point is that depending upon the circuit's physical placement, shielding, circuit redundancy, program fault tolerance, etc., it vulnerability to an external disruption (either physical material like a micro-meteor or radiation from a solar flare, etc.) could be greater than the communication circuitry. Additionally, the programming in the control program would probably have been much more complex in the execution loops and thus more vulnerable to information/coding loss. Such a loss could have been responsible for an errant command to fire a thruster, loss of command signal processing or execution, etc.
  • Don’t talk to aliens warns Stephen Hawking(extraterrestrials almost certain to exist)

    04/25/2010 4:52:53 AM PDT · 93 of 163
    Lucky Dog to jveritas
    Frank Drake, an astronomer, proposed the core of the expression in 1961.

    The equation seeks to quantify the number, N, of technical civilizations in the galaxy

    The equation is as follows:

    N = R* fp ne fl fi fc L 


    




    R* = mean rate of star formation in the milky way, our local galaxy. 


    fp = the fraction of those stars which form planetary systems. 




    ne = the number of planets in those systems which are ecologically suitable for lifeforms to evolve. 




    fl = the number of those planets on which lifeforms actually develop. 


    

 fi = the number of those which evolve to an intelligent form. 




    fc = the number of advanced intelligent lifeforms which develop the capability of interstellar radio communication. 




    L = the lifetime of those advanced technically advanced civilisations.
  • An Atheist Responds : Christopher Hitchens Throws Down the Gauntlet to those who believe in God

    04/24/2010 7:18:51 AM PDT · 120 of 163
    Lucky Dog to Hank Kerchief
    My goodness, “to avoid an ego bruise.” Is that what you think I’ve been doing. I’ve only been trying to be polite, and answering your questions as honestly as I could. I’m not trying to win an argument. I could care less what you choose to believe (except my world will be less one more objectively rational person), which are already damn sparse.

    My dear fellow, I fear you misinterpret my thrust. Your politeness is certainly appreciated, as are my attempts (I hope). An ego bruise refers to the result of having a statement asserted on self-authority [ego] successfully challenged [bruised] by fact and/or logic. As for beliefs, they are, in deed, matters of faith. This has been my point throughout this entire discussion. Recall that, throughout my comments on this thread, I have observed that atheism is a faith based no more in fact and logic than is theism or deism.

    You may have faith (or believe, if you prefer that term) that the moon is made of green cheese. However, after having been presented with results of the examination of lunar material retrieved by astronauts who visited the moon, if you persist in that belief, it reveals you as a “non-realist.” As a result, the term becomes an accurate characterization, your protestations to the contrary, notwithstanding.

    I did not ignore your second syllogism, I pointed out that plausibility is not science, and therefor not a “fact” that needs to be addressed.

    sci·ence   [sahy-uhns]

    –noun
    1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
    2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

    Dictionary.com Unabridged
    Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2010.


    Let’s try this again: To deny that the universe began to exist puts you in the “anti-realist” situation of having to refute the Big Bang Theory (as was noted in an earlier post). Again, the syllogism, as was implied earlier:

    1. The universe exhibits cosmic background radiation.


    [This premise statement is a fact, an observation, a matter of science… one which you have pointedly ignored in this post. However, the fact will not go away just because you refuse to address it or say it isn’t so. You were challenged to logically explain this fact, but, to date, you have not.]

    2. The most plausible explanation for cosmic background radiation is the “Big Bang” (a point of universe creation).

    [the use of the word plausible here is a grammatical nod to the word theory, as a matter of science, any theory, e.g., the Theory of Relativity, can never be more than plausible … in the case at hand, the Big Bang Theory explains, without falsification, to date, the presence of cosmic background radiation… a condition which, if you choose to ignore, again, reinforces that you are a “anti-realist”]

    3. Therefore, the universe had a point of creation (began to exist).

    This last statement is a logically valid conclusion, the final part of the syllogism. As I noted earlier, Aristotelean logic may be subject to some valid criticisms. [The criticisms of this school of logic are at the more esoteric levels than that employed in this syllogism] Nonetheless, the argument is completely valid [consistent with any form of logic, not just Aristotelean] and the arguments are sound as presented unless you can factually refute the premises... something you have not done with anything other than a "gratuitous denial"... a logical fallacy.

    You said you find the conversation interesting, so I have attempted to make it interesting. I’ve had thousands of such discussions, and quite frankly, they are boring to me. No one is interested in basic principles and objective truth, and I have no interest in the multitude of authorities the second-hand minds are willing to accept. [emphasis added]

    It appears from your continual use of the logical fallacy, "gratuitous denial," that you are the one that is uninterested in objective truth. Perhaps, if you chose to engage in a logical and factual debate, the discussions would not bore you.

    There is only one authority for me, and the ultimate arbiter of all truth, reality, and the only means I have of apprehending it is my own mind. I’ll agree to discuss, objectively, any idea, but I will never surrender the independence of my own mind and life.

    No one is asking you to surrender the independence of your own mind and life. In fact, the opposite is the case. You have been challenged to exercise that independence in a logically consistent manner to ascertain the truth. Let me refer you to Descartes’ Discourse on the Method of Rightly Conducting One's Reason and of Seeking Truth in the Sciences.

    That apparently offends you, which tells me a great deal about your real motives. You may need other people’s agreement, I do not, and never have…

    On the contrary, I am not offended. Perhaps, you could say I am frustrated over your failure to present a logically sound and consistent argument to backup your espoused positions. Without such, your presentations are just groundless expositions of opinion and/or belief. As you observed earlier, Truth is not established on the basis of how many people believe something…. I might add it is not established any more by what you, personally, may, or may not, believe, or apprehend in your own mind, either.

    I know what the truth is, and I live by that and nothing else. What others live by, if not the truth, they have to deal with, and will suffer for it.

    In deed, the search for truth has been a preoccupation of human kind since well before Socrates’ time. As a matter of fact, the definition of truth has been wrapped into this search since before that time, as well. If, in actuality, you know what the truth is without Divine revelation, you have surpassed Socrates, Descartes, Hume and every other, secular philosopher the planet has ever produced. The rest of us mere mortals must stand in complete awe. [Sorry, I couldn’t resist a little cynicism and sarcasm… It is supposed to humorous, not indication of offense.]

    I wish you the best, my friend. I do not believe you would wish the less for me. Let that be enough!

    This comment implies that you are abandoning the debate… too bad… I really would like to see you logically and factually address the syllogism (cited above) you have ignored to this point.
  • An Atheist Responds : Christopher Hitchens Throws Down the Gauntlet to those who believe in God

    04/23/2010 6:45:45 PM PDT · 115 of 163
    Lucky Dog to Hank Kerchief
    It appears that you have not straightforwardly addressed a single argument I put forward. There were two simple syllogisms in the last post.

    You denied the premises in the first without any countering facts other than your own unsupported assertion. It other words, from your perspective, your assertion is so only because you say it is so.

    You completely ignore the second syllogism.

    You were originally challenged to explain cosmic background radiation. Such an explanation objectively leads to the Big Bang Theory. You have ignored these implications with an epistemological "hand wave."

    Aristotelean logic may be subject to some valid criticisms. Nonetheless, it is completely valid and the arguments are sound as presented unless you can factually refute the premises... something you have not done with anything other than a "gratuitous denial"... a logical fallacy.

    Sorry, I reject your (individual) authority until and/or unless you can perform the feat I suggested earlier ordering the tide to run against its schedule and having it obey you. If you cannot, then your unsupported opinion is worth no more than any potential entertainment value it may have.

    If you can directly disprove the premises previously presented, then you have grounds for continued argument. Otherwise, your argument is not a logical argument based upon fact, but merely a "quarrel" to avoid an ego bruise.

    Have you a factually based, logically valid counter argument?
  • An Atheist Responds : Christopher Hitchens Throws Down the Gauntlet to those who believe in God

    04/23/2010 9:51:36 AM PDT · 105 of 163
    Lucky Dog to Hank Kerchief
    “Perhaps, you could specify exactly which premise(s) you refuse to accept…”

    I do not “refuse” to accept them, I understand them to be wrong and therefore cannot accept them. Only the first two are premises and both are incorrect.

    “1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause for its coming into being.

    2. The universe began to exist.”


    You are correct. Only the first two statements were premises (a major and a minor). The third statement was the conclusion of the syllogism.

    Let me address you assertions in reverse order: To deny that the universe began to exist puts you in the “anti-realist” situation of having to refute the Big Bang Theory (as was noted in an earlier post). Again, the syllogism as was implied earlier:

    1. The universe exhibits cosmic background radiation.
    2. The most plausible explanation for cosmic background radiation is the “Big Bang” (a point of universe creation).
    3. Therefore, the universe had a point of creation (began to exist).

    The first is only true of living beings. The Humean view of “cause and effect” is very wrong. It is sometimes referred to as “event” based cause, that is one event causes another “event.”

    Your statement violates the core principle of logic (causation or causality) as first codified by Aristotle (not Hume).

    I am enjoying our discussion. Unfortunately, I must abandon it for the moment as outside duties call. I will return to the discussion at my first opportunity.
  • An Atheist Responds : Christopher Hitchens Throws Down the Gauntlet to those who believe in God

    04/23/2010 6:30:02 AM PDT · 99 of 163
    Lucky Dog to Hank Kerchief
    “Perhaps, a definition reference will help resolve this issue for you”

    What issue. I don’t have an issue. Call me whatever you like. Call me a Shmoo if you like. (Err..., you might not be old enought to know what those are.) What’s with the labels? I told you what I believe, and couldn’t care less what label you’d like to put on it. Good grief!

    Quite to the contrary, I know what Shmoo means as well as Btfsplk and many other, wonderful Al Capp inventions. (I used to read his delightful and insightful comics when I was younger… I suspect our ages may be fairly close.)

    However, the real point is that to communicate unambiguously, we must have, at least, a minimum vocabulary that we agree upon. Without such, only confusion exists.

    “... it is a statement of inference based upon premises ...”

    Yes, it is your premises I do not accept.

    Perhaps, you could specify exactly which premise(s) you refuse to accept…

    1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause for its coming into being.
    2. The universe began to exist.
    3. Therefore, the universe has a cause for its coming into being.

    One of the original question repeated for clarity: If there is no God, as you (the atheist) maintain, why should not the "law of the jungle" be the governing moral code of humanity?

    “Morals are sets of rules intended to govern human behavior.”

    No, morals, or better, ethical principles, are the means of determining correct choices, not a collection of prohibitions and admonitions.

    Again, “Perhaps, a definition reference will help resolve this …”

    mor·als

    –plural noun

    principles or habits with respect to right or wrong conduct.

    eth·ics

    –plural noun

    the rules of conduct recognized in respect to a particular class of human actions or a particular group, culture, etc.: medical ethics; Christian ethics.

    The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2009 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

    Of course, the above definitions can become somewhat circular because of the definition required for right conduct. For example, most moral sources hold that it is not right conduct for one human to kill another. However, is it wrong to kill a human being if that is that is the only way that person can be stopped from killing another person? If so, then killing can be judged to be right conduct in some circumstances. Consequently, there is no moral absolute in this principle.

    Again, most moral sources hold that it is not right conduct for a person to steal. Additionally, these same sources, also, hold that it also wrong to intentionally allow another person to die unnecessarily when you have the power to intervene to stop that death. Therefore, is it not right conduct for a person to steal if that is the only way that individual can stop another from dying? Again, it seems there is no moral absolute in this principle, either.

    There are literally hundreds of dilemmas that could be posed showing that without resorting to a Divine revelation as a source of morals, everything is relative. If in deed, everything is relative, there are no moral absolutes. Therefore, an atheist (one who denies or disbelieves the Divine) has extreme difficulty proclaiming any behavior always right conduct leading to the conclusion that, for an atheist, there are no moral absolutes.

    “Your assertion is patently false. First, if moral principles were absolutes, there would be no competing systems of morality ...”

    “Silly! There were at one time competing views of chemistry, which is the state of moral research today. Just because you and others have not discovered the absolute moral principles does not mean they do not exist, it just means you’re still in the phlogiston stage of moral understanding. You haven’t discovered oxygen yet.

    Please, allow me to point out that the study of chemistry, or the “views” thereof, has existed as a discipline for only a few hundred years. On the other hand, the study of human right conduct, or morality, has existed for millennia. Therefore, I submit that this discipline is far more mature as a field of systematic study than is chemistry. A great many learned philosophers studying this field through the millennia have all come to the same conclusion: absent an appeal to Divine revelation, any set of moral principles is relative… that is, there are no moral absolutes without God.
  • An Atheist Responds : Christopher Hitchens Throws Down the Gauntlet to those who believe in God

    04/22/2010 12:15:19 PM PDT · 77 of 163
    Lucky Dog to Hank Kerchief
    Hank,

    Sorry for any confusion on my last post to you. I was addressing both you and Jormungandr in the same post. While I tried to separate all of our comments with different colors to reduce confusion, the effort was obviously not completely successful. Your comments were in blue, Jormungandr was in green and mine were red for the previous post and in black for the current (at that time) post.

    I'm not sure what your purpose is, but mine was only to answer your questions, only to show you what I believe and why. I have no intention of trying to convince you of anything.

    My purpose was to engage you and Jormungandr in a friendly debate on the topic. The questions I posed were structured in an attempt to elicit logic supporting replies.

    Now this is very interesting:

    "You, sir, are not an atheist. By definition of the very word, an atheist maintains that there is no God. You may be classed as an agnostic, perhaps, but given your statement, never an atheist."

    I never claimed to be. I frequently point out I never call myself an atheist, because I think it is stupid to identify oneself in terms of what one does not believe. I do not believe there is a deity of any kind, and am absolutely certain of it. It's not a belief, it's a lack of one. Quite frankly, the word "deity" or "God" does not identify any meaningful concept that I could even consider believing. That's all. [emphasis added]

    Perhaps, a definition reference will help resolve this issue for you:

    a·the·ist   [ ey-thee-ist]

    a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings --- Dictionary.com Unabridged Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2010.

    I submit that your statement (emphasized above) very nearly, exactly fits the definition quoted above. It is, in fact, the statement you… do not believe there is a deity of any kind, and am absolutely certain of it… that makes you an atheist. However, your other statements are in previous posts are not congruent or consistent… in other words, your words are logically contradictory.

    "You must then tackle the “Big Bang Theory” and refute it."

    I find it interesting the people keep telling me what I "must" do….

    The “must do” cited above was not intended as a “command.” Rather, it was an admonition that for your statements (in previous posts) to be logically consistent, certain actions are required to resolve obvious incongruencies in reasoning. I hope this explanation clarified the intent of my comments concerning “must do.”

    … Whatever they call it, the so-called "big bang" is a hypothesis, not a theory. Just a guess, like evolution. I do not have to refute, I just don't accept other people's guesses about anything. [emphasis added]

    Your assertion is incorrect. The “Big Bang” is, in fact, a fully developed, and widely accepted scientific theory. Perhaps, again, a definition reference will help resolve this issue for you:

    the·o·ry [thee-uh-ree, theer-ee]

    1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena. --- Dictionary.com Unabridged Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2010.

    You quoted me: "Existence, to me, means everything that is, that is, everything that exists is part of existence."

    Then wrote: "This method of argument is called 'begging the question.'"

    Sigh! No son, it's called defining one's terms. I wasn't making an argument for anything, only telling you what I mean when I use the term, "existence."

    Recall that my challenge was not to define existence. Rather, the challenge was to explain existence. Sorry, that challenge was a bit of red hearing in the sense that there already are several well developed branches of philosophy such as existentialism, rationalism, and empiricism that attempt to address this challenge. My purpose was literally to force an admission that existence must be acknowledged thus avoiding Platoic “forms” arguments, etc.

    "According to currently accepted theory, background radiation is the result of the “Big Bang.” The “Big Bang” is a point of creation. A point of creation logically implies a Creator, i.e., a God."

    I do not care if you want to believe that. I don't.

    Please note that I used the words logically implies. This marks a statement, not of a belief, rather, it is a statement of inference based upon premises and the precepts of logic. Consequently, it is irrelevant if you don’t believe . Your belief, or lack thereof, does not invalidate the logic. Your failure to address a logical argument simply means that you refuse to use reason.

    "The point is that there is no proof making atheism a faith. In deed, it is a faith that cannot explain existence among a lot of other things. Theism and Deism, at least, offers such explanations."

    I have no idea what that means. No proof of what? Faith in what?

    The point (expanded) is that it is impossible to prove the assertion that God exists. Therefore, asserting that He does exist is a matter of faith. Similarly, (expanded) it is impossible to prove the assertion that God does not, exist. As a result, asserting that He does not exist is, also, a matter of faith. Consequently, atheism, just like, theism and deism, is a faith.

    I do not believe their a fairies at the bottom of the garden. Why would that have to be proved? Do you call that "faith?"

    It is in fact faith. However, if you don't mind, I'll skip addressing this one in detail. It is subsumed in the other arguments presented.

    Is English your first language?

    Yes.

    Do you believe in a literal Phoenix? So, is that your "faith?"

    I have been there many times. Therefore, it is not a matter of faith, but one of knowledge.

    You can't prove there is not a Phoenix.

    There is a Phoenix. Consequently, I can prove it with a trip to Arizona and direct observation.

    "There is apparently no voluntary human behavior that is not malleable or optional. Therefore, human behavior based upon moral precepts is not based upon the nature of existence. If moral principles are absolute and eternal, please explain Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Genghis Kahn, versus Jesus or Buddha, etc."

    Morals are sets of rules intended to govern human behavior. Note that there are no morals for polar bears, sheep, tigers, etc. If human behavior is governed by many different sets of morals, then, logically, there is no such thing as a moral absolute. The citations of different people who behaved in extremely different manners was a illustration of that assertion.

    What are you talking about? Moral principles are just absolute as the principles of Chemistry. Does everyone just automatically know the principles of Chemistry? Why would you think people just automatically know moral principles? Most people don't, that is the explanation for the evil in the world. Good grief!

    Your assertion is patently false. First, if moral principles were absolutes, there would be no competing systems of morality, e.g., Christianity, Islam, Secular Humanism, Toaism, Buddhism, etc. Likewise, there would be no “moral dilemmas,” leading to a philosophy called “moral relativism.”

    Note that there is no “chemical relativism.” If one combines the same elements under the same conditions, the results are always within the same outcome predictions. However, if one combines the same situation conditions under different moral codes, the results are seldom the same. Therefore, your assertion that there are moral absolutes is patently false.

    I hope you find my answers interesting, else I'm sorry I wasted your time. I have no interest in convincing you of anything, only expressing my views, for your, or anyone else's consideration.

    On the contrary, it is not a waste of my time. I enjoy a debate.
  • An Atheist Responds : Christopher Hitchens Throws Down the Gauntlet to those who believe in God

    04/21/2010 6:47:38 PM PDT · 61 of 163
    Lucky Dog to Hank Kerchief; Jormungandr
    Can you (the atheist) explain existence?

    Yes!

    The question was an invitation to do so, not merely a inquiry as to your opinion as to whether you think you can or not.

    Can you (the atheist) explain where existence came from?

    It didn't "come form" anywhere. There is no basis for the assumption it did. Existence always is.

    You must then tackle the “Big Bang Theory” and refute it. This widely accepted theory maintains that there was a beginning for existence. Therefore, other than your assertion, what is your proof that this theory is wrong?

    We perceive stimuly through our (material) sensory organs, and process it in a physical brain through electro-chemical reactions.
We are that way because we have evolved to have those organs.


    You have not addressed existence only a perception thereof.

    How did the universe come into being? At one point, a singularity happened, and physical laws started working. While we can’t measure the singularity because we ARE bound by the laws of physics, everything can smoothly happen through material means from there.


    Therefore, you admit that we cannot know. If we cannot know, then any position about the origin of existence is based upon faith. The atheist who asserts there is no God is doing so only on faith as is the theist or deist who asserts that there is, in deed, a God.

    Can you (the atheist) explain existence in relation to the law of entropy?

    There is no such relationship. Perhaps your thinking about energy in a limited system.

    The law of entropy operates throughout the universe, not just a closed system. The universe exists. Therefore, the law of entropy operates throughout the universe… By definition, that is a relationship.

    In relation to the law of entropy? Entropy always wins, OVERALL. It’s chaos.

    If your assertion is correct, then the universe started from a more organized state than it is currently in or than it will eventually wind up in. Working backward with this concept, the implication is that something or Someone created the universe as chaos cannot work in reverse.

    It does not increase all the time everywhere, it only need to grow overall.
While life runs counter to entropy, it produces entropy outside of it.


    Your assertion demands an origin for life and an explanation of why it “runs counter to entropy.” As for your assertion that [life] produces entropy outside of it[self], your assertion is unsupported.

    Existence, to me, means everything that is, that is, everything that exists is part of existence.

    This method of argument is called “begging the question.” You have not attempted to explain existence nor where it came from.

    Just for fun though. Does God exist? Then he is part of any existence you seem to have trouble understanding. If God does not exist, well then, what's the problem?

    The creator can exist independent of the creation. Even within our limited understanding of the universe, you must admit that a parent exists independently of a child. Therefore, it is not a giant leap of logic to assert that the Creator of the universe can exist independent of His creation. Just as a parent can influence a child or, even, direct it, the Creator of the universe could influence the universe or even direct it.

    Can you (the atheist) explain the origin of the phenomenon known as cosmic background radiation?

    Well, no, because I'm not certain what is called cosmic background radiation is what current theory believes.

    Cosmic Background radiation? Easy one. Ask anyone with undergrad physics. It appeared extremely early in the universe, radiation emitted while matter was being formed.


    According to currently accepted theory, background radiation is the result of the “Big Bang.” The “Big Bang” is a point of creation. A point of creation logically implies a Creator, i.e., a God.

    Can you (the atheist) prove there is no God?

    Why would I? I have no interest in discouraging those who believe in God from their belief.

    The point is that there is no proof making atheism a faith. In deed, it is a faith that cannot explain existence among a lot of other things. Theism and Deism, at least, offers such explanations.

    If you (the atheist) cannot prove that there is no God, then is not the position that there is none, based upon faith?

    Can an atheist prove there is no God? Traditionally the burden of proof is on the claimant, not the skeptic.


    Isn’t atheism based on faith? Weak atheism is consistent, simple lack of faith: I see a lack of evidence for the existence of God, so I don’t believe.


    Can you see existence? If you cannot explain existence, then there is evidence of something beyond the “faith of atheism.”

    I've never tried to prove it, so I wouldn't know. Who knows, I might believe in God if anyone ever shows me evidence for a God, or the description of one is plausible to me.

    As I noted earlier, your assertion that existence “always has been” is unsupported by evidence. On the other hand, a point of creation (the “Big Bang”) is supported by evidence (cosmic background radiation). A point of creation is, prima fascia, evidence of a Creator.

    How is the faith there is no God any different from any other faith? (lacking moral codes, holidays, rituals, obligations to one's fellowman, etc., excepted)

    I wouldn't know. You'll have to ask someone who has such faith. Everything I believe and know is based on reason which I fully understand. I will not believe anything else, and accept no contradictions.

    If there is no God, as you (the atheist) maintain, why should not the "law of the jungle" be the governing moral code of humanity?

    Strong atheism (There CAN’T be a God) IS based on faith.


    How is lack of faith different from any other faith? Weak atheism is simple lack of any religious belief. Skepticism. Strong atheism is another animal altogether.


    That's your belief, not mine. You believe moral principles are arbitrary, dictated by someone.

    I have not asserted any such fact or belief. I have merely asked a question.

    I believe moral principles are absolute and eternal, based on reality, the nature of existence and the nature of man.

    There is apparently no voluntary human behavior that is not malleable or optional. Therefore, human behavior based upon moral precepts is not based upon the nature of existence. If moral principles are absolute and eternal, please explain Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Genghis Kahn, versus Jesus or Buddha, etc.

    Reality cannot be defied, and never forgives wrong. God does forgive wrong. Morality is not absolute for the religious.

    You have confused an argument about the “nature of God” with one about the “existence of God.” A deist would argue that God is not forgiving in the slightest. Additionally, you have confused man’s belief system based upon faith (a religion) with reality.

    Why not the law of the jungle? We evolved as social and tribal animals. Tribes have their rules, that’s why we’re not complete chaos. Moreover, ethics can be grounded in logical principles.

    The only logic that seems universally operable in human moral behavior is “if you can get away with it, you can do it.” I am not sure there is anyone who call that axiom a “moral” or “ethical” principle.

    Not to mention most atheists believe in the social contract theory.




    What part of the social contract was Hitler fulfilling? Or, Stalin? Or, Vlad Dracula? Or, the Marquis de Sade? Or, a suicide bomber?

    If there is no God, as you (the atheist) maintain, why do you object to others claiming there is one, since such a claim would not matter by your position?

    I've already said I have no such objection. I do not need the idea of a God to understand the world I live in, but I think a lot of people do, and since that belief is the source of their principles and values, I really do not want to see them loose their faith. I do not want to live in a world filled with people without values and principles.

    The question was not directed to you, in particular, but to atheists in general. For example, why would an atheist file a lawsuit about the Pledge of Allegiance or the National Motto on coins? If there is no God (by the atheistic assertion), then what difference does it make to have “…one nation under God…” or In God We Trust?

    I'd be interested in the answers your atheist friends have for these questions

    You got 'em.

    I don't believe in your God, but certainly do not care that you do.


    I have said nothing about my personal beliefs. However, your concession that I may believe as I choose is welcome, nonetheless.

    Except when someone who does believe in God asks me, or uses that concept in some argument, I never give it a thought. I certainly do not "maintain" there is no God, I just have no reason to believe in one, but it only one of many things I do not believe in, and to me, of little or no significance.

    You, sir, are not an atheist. By definition of the very word, an atheist maintains that there is no God. You may be classed as an agnostic, perhaps, but given your statement, never an atheist.
  • An Atheist Responds : Christopher Hitchens Throws Down the Gauntlet to those who believe in God

    04/21/2010 12:12:07 PM PDT · 28 of 163
    Lucky Dog to SeekAndFind
    In addition to your question for the absolute source of ethics, here are some other questions for your atheist friends:

    Can you (the atheist) explain existence?

    Can you (the atheist) explain where existence came from?

    Can you (the atheist) explain existence in relation to the law of entropy?

    Can you (the atheist) explain the origin of the phenomenon known as cosmic background radiation?

    Can you (the atheist) prove there is no God?

    If you (the atheist) cannot prove that there is no God, then is not the position that there is none, based upon faith?

    How is the faith there is no God any different from any other faith? (lacking moral codes, holidays, rituals, obligations to one's fellowman, etc., excepted)

    If there is no God, as you (the atheist) maintain, why should not the "law of the jungle" be the governing moral code of humanity?

    If there is no God, as you (the atheist) maintain, why do you object to others claiming there is one, since such a claim would not matter by your position?

    I'd be interested in the answers your atheist friends have for these questions…

  • Atheist Group Calls on Obama to Endorse ‘National Day of Reason' Instead of 'National Day of Prayer'

    04/20/2010 5:38:47 AM PDT · 20 of 26
    Lucky Dog to Man50D
    Questions for atheists:

    Can you explain existence?

    Can you explain where existence came from?

    Can you explain existence in relation to the law of entropy?

    Can you prove there is no God?

    If there is no God, as you maintain, why do you object to others claiming there is one, since such a claim would not matter by your position?

    Explain the origin of the phenomenon known as cosmic background radiation?

    More questions to follow when atheists have satisfactorily explained those above…
  • Need Military Questions Answered for ESSAY

    04/16/2010 12:11:36 PM PDT · 17 of 21
    Lucky Dog to fourth-generation
    Is an Airman considered a Soldier?

    Airman is a “rank” in the United States Air Force. The term soldier is traditionally used for someone (potentially of any rank) in the Army. How long is an enlistment term in the Air Force?


    Do not confuse an “enlistment” with a “commissioning.” An enlistment is a contract between the individual and the service that has a time limit. Among other differences, “commissioning” is not time limited.

    Most enlisted ranks (except the lowest) are referred to as “non-commissioned” officers. There are very distinct differences in the levels of responsibility (and pay) between enlisted personnel and commissioned personnel.

    How long does it take to become a pilot in the Air Force?

    Undergraduate pilot training (UPT) is slightly less than one year. This period does not include the flight indoctrination program (FIP). FIP varies in length but will be probably no less than two or three months and may be as long as six months. After UPT a pilot is sent to a particular training program for an assigned weapon system (fighters, bombers, transports, etc.) The length of this training depends upon the individual weapon system. However, this training is typically at least six months (or more) long.

    How long would it take someone to become an elite fighter pilot?

    There are some who argue that any US fighter pilot is “elite.” To be a pilot, one must be a commissioned officer. To be a commissioned officer in the current era, one must be a college graduate. Not everyone can qualify to get into college. Not everyone who gets in to college can graduate from college. Not all college graduates can qualify for the commissioning programs of the US armed forces. Not everyone who enters a commissioning program graduates. Not all those who graduate from a commissioning program can qualify to enter pilot training. Not all pilot candidates graduate from UPT. Not all UPT graduates are able complete their assigned weapon system qualification courses.

    Therefore, as you can see, there are screening and selections taking place at each step of the process. Consequently, the argument that any fighter pilot is “elite” is true in a very real sense. However, there are “elites” even among the “elite.”

    It typically takes another two to four years after graduating from weapon systems (fighter) training before a “newly minted” fighter pilot is considered to have “arrived.” During this time frame the fighter pilot will have received his “mission ready” check out which may take another six months after which the pilot is “wingman.” Following this qualification and a few years of experience, the fighter pilot trains to become an “element leader” or a “two-ship” lead and then, after more experience and years, a “flight leader” or a “four-ship” lead. Typically, a “four-ship” is smallest, planned, combat employment for fighters.

    Some period after qualifying as a “flight lead,” (perhaps years) there is, typically, “upgrade training” to instructor pilot in the assigned weapon system (fighter). From among these instructors, some volunteer, and are chosen, to go on to the Fighter Weapons Instructor Course (FWIC, some times called by the uninitiated, popular press “Top Gun School”). Additionally, some of these fighter pilots, who may not have volunteered for FWIC, volunteer, and are chosen, to go on to “Aggressor” training where they learn to not only to be elite US fighter pilots but to fly like potential “enemy” pilots. These “fake enemy” pilots teach US fighter pilots what they might see if they were to “engage” in combat against some our potential enemies. Yet other fighter pilots volunteer, and are chosen, to go on the “Thunderbirds” (aerial demonstration team) or Test Pilot Training. Of course, a percentage of these fighter pilots become flying unit commanders, another “elite” category.

    As is obvious from all of the possibilities just mentioned (and there are even more that could have been mentioned), the definition of who are the “elites” among the “elite” is not an easy question to answer. Is a navigator only on certain types of aircraft, or is it standard?

    There are navigators or “Weapons Systems Officers” (WSOs) only on a few fighter types in the current inventory. One example is the F-15E. The other models of the F-15 are all “pilot only.” In the F-16, there are no models that have WSOs. Neither the F-22 nor the F-35 are currently planned for WSOs. Navigators are still on a large number of bombers such as the B-52 and few other types of USAF aircraft.