Archive for November, 2012


There seems to be a confusion among evolution skeptics that is overlooked by most people who accept evolution. Skeptics of evolution tend to think that evolution is a world-view that believers in evolution hold on to with all our might, unwilling to see the world otherwise. In other words, they view evolution as a religion.

This makes sense to evolution skeptics because they know that they cannot change certain beliefs that they have of their religion. They cannot stop believing in the basic tenets of their religion, or their life would be in shambles (or at least, that’s what they believe).

However, I hope I can speak for most people who believe in evolution when I say, if scientists suddenly found a serious problem that ran counter to evolutionary theory, and after a peer review, they declared that evolution was actually not the answer for how we arrived here, believers in evolution would be excited!  This concept is mind-blowing for evolution skeptics because it would seem to them like evolution believers’ lives would have been ruined because our concept of how the world works would have been ruined. Not at all. In fact, in order for evolutionary theory to be overturned, there would have to be an even more amazing, all-encompassing theory to replace it. So, would this be disappointing? No! This would be absolutely fascinating! There would be so many new interesting questions raised by this drastic discovery. There is nothing about evolutionary theory itself that we evolution believers cling to: we just accept the facts. We are not promised life after this life or punishment of our enemies. We simply accept what the scientific method demonstrates.

Of course, it is extremely improbable that the entire theory of evolution will be overturned considering the vast amounts of evidence in its favor and the absence of scientific evidence running counter to it at this moment. However, the vast amount of evidence for evolution does not make me happier. The fact is, people who believe in evolution tend to believe it because they care about science, not evolution specifically. They may have an interest in studying the mechanics or evidence of evolution, but caring for something is a little different.

We do care about the scientific method because humans have tried many methods for understanding the world in the past. Animal sacrifice, human sacrifice, palmistry, rain dances and so on, have all failed to produce repeatable results as the scientific method has. As a result of the repeatability of the scientific method, it has produced virtually all the inventions we see around us in modern society. I care to protect that concept because I care about preserving and advancing the benefits of modern society.

The theory of evolution has been arrived at via the scientific method. Therefore, I care about evolution only because I care about science. Whether or not evolution is true is not something I am emotional about; however, denying the accuracy of scientific analysis is an affront to our modern society and, as a defender of modern society, I feel a duty to defend the truthfulness of scientific analysis.


Feminism is a Misnomer

The idea of feminism has become anathema to many people. Why is this? I believe that it is not because of the few fringe feminists who proclaim extreme statements (though, that does add fuel to the fire). I believe that it is much simpler: the word “feminism” is inherently divisive.  However, this should not be the case.

The misnomer lies in the initial creation of this word: its prefix refers to only women. Unfortunately, I have no alternative word that would supplant “feminism” (sexual-equalism just doesn’t have the same impact). As a result, the word implies a superiority of women’s issues or at least a battle solely on behalf of women. In my opinion, this is not truly what feminism is or should be.

My definition of feminism is different than most dictionaries. I believe that feminism should be a striving for equality and fair treatment among both sexes. I am not the only one who believes this. It is to the detriment of society if any member is treated unfairly or unequally. Further, I would assert that it is to the detriment of either sex if the other sex is treated unfairly or unequally.

In this way, men’s rights should be fought for by feminists as much as women’s rights.

Some people will scoff at this statement and say, “Men are in the position of power, they are the ones monopolizing the rights.” This is a very simplistic way of looking at the world. The fact is, we need to consider women and men not as monolithic entities, but as a single descriptor of individuals in society. There are poor, disabled, homosexual white men. Are these men the monopolizers of rights? Every individual has different qualities and it is unfair to lump them into a giant group of “men” or “women” only.

Therefore, if examples of men having higher conviction rates than women, or male genital mutilation (circumcision) should not be swept under the carpet or laughed away. Men being portrayed as bumbling morons on sit-coms should also not be ignored (Note: some shows, like the Simpsons, demonstrate various kinds of men, so this is no problem. However, other shows these days seem to make all men on the show appear like some kind of simpleton who somehow earns money).

So, sometimes people are surprised when I refer to myself as a feminist.  I’ll admit,  it does seem like sycophantism for a man to proclaim that they are a feminist, according to the standard definition of the term. However, I claim to be a feminist with my aforementioned definition in mind. In this way, it is not impossible for a man to be a feminist with my definition; nor is it embarrassing.

Regarding a new word to supplant feminism, I have not thought of anything. Any suggestions would be welcome. 🙂

I remember watching a YouTube clip in which Richard Dawkins interviews a Muslim guy, seen here. In this clip, there was one quote that was particularly annoying. I will paraphrase to make the statement neater since it was a back and forth discussion. Essentially he stated that Western men dressed their women as whores. I assume he meant, we let them dress like whores; regardless, it’s still a ridiculous statement.

This statement is rude and offensive due to its sexist slant; however, I will let feminists attack this point. I am more concerned with something more overarching: it is an ignorant and unfair comparison.

Ignorant because Muslims who make these kinds of statements don’t realize why it is an unfair comparison.

The explanation of its unfairness of this comparison may not be intuitive; however, once dissected, it is quite easy to notice. There are many aspects of culture, and for this reason, it is quite easy to compare apples and oranges without realizing it.

In this instance, the Muslim being interviewed is comparing modern Western culture with traditional Islamic culture. This is not fair. Of course there are traditional Western women who never reveal their bodies in a sexual manner. Of course there are Islamic women who dress provocatively and behave sexually (there are brothels in Islamic countries).

Now, of course women in Western countries are more likely to dress provocatively, but why is this? Is this what Western culture was like traditionally? No. Not at all. The reason why more Western women dress this way is because they can. Specifically, it is because of the continuous fight against the oppression of women in Western culture. In modern Western societies, women are free to dress as they please with little risk of being given dirty looks and no risk of being imprisoned or beheaded.

This same fight against the oppression of women has not happened in Islamic countries. This is not something to brag about. This is something to be ashamed about.

The same advancement of the rights of homosexuals and religious minorities has not occurred in Islamic countries either and we see the same desire by many Muslims to be proud of this lack of advancement. This can be illustrated by the infamous quote by the president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, “Our country doesn’t have homosexuals.” Again, was this always the case in Western societies? Have Westerners always loved homosexuals and religious minorities? Again, no. The acceptance of the rights of these aforementioned groups are not Western ideals: they are universal ideals.

So, when a Muslim compares Western and Islamic cultures, they should either compare modern Western women and modern Muslim women or traditional Western women and traditional Muslim women. Muslims have no reason to be proud of comparing traditional Islamic culture with modern Western culture. This is an unfair comparison.

Moreover, this is desire to brag about how “modest” Muslim women are in Islamic countries is actually something to be ashamed of, not proud of, since it illustrates how backward the rights of women are in their country. That is, Islamic countries have failed to discover these universal ideals.

There is no evidence that women in Islamic countries innately desire to cover themselves more than any other women. They are products of the society in which they live and these products have not been taken care of. So, whenever a Muslim asserts that their women are more modest than Western women, it is our duty as global citizens to criticize this behavior for the protection of minorities everywhere.

In case you don’t know, projection in the Freudian sense, is when a person subconsciously denies their own attributes and then ascribes them to other people. For example, a person may be very racist against black people and claim that black people harbor a great racism against white people. The point here is not whether or not racism exists in whites or blacks (I’ve read that subconscious racism exists in all of us), but rather that the reason why the “projector” says the other group is racist is because they feel guilt for their own racism.

This is something that happens often with religious people. There is the constant claim that non-believers are immoral; however, there are plenty of instances of immorality due to religious belief. Hatred of other groups, slavery, and child abuse are all immoral behaviors that are supported by the bible. As a result, any sufficiently intelligent Christian cannot hold the two beliefs that their religion is wholly moral and that these examples of immorality exist within their belief system without some psychological reaction. The reaction is generally projection.

There are other examples. What is one extremely taboo subject among most religions? In a word, sex. The question of why this originally entered the worldviews of believers — that is, why the holy texts assert that sex is bad — is a more complicated question than I am willing to get into here. What I’m referring to, is why is there a visceral reaction among the religious whenever the topic of sex comes up? It is because, simply, everyone has an interest in sex. The repression of this impulse causes the need for projection. The actual subconscious thinking process is something like this: “I enjoy sex. No, I shouldn’t believe that because my holy book says it’s bad. Ok, I’ll try to stop enjoying sex. Hey, that girl over there is dressing provocatively and flirting with a man! Why is she allowed to think about sex and I’m not? She’s a slut! She always thinks about sex while I, as a pure believer, never think about sex!” The result is what we see in religious communities the world round. Pre-marital sex prohibition, extra-marital sex legal prohibition (by stoning in Islam), homosexual sex prohibition, non-standard sex (that is, anything but missionary position) prohibition, sexual dress prohibition, and so on. These are all forms of projections or, to put it another way, envy. This is not a mentally healthy way to live one’s life.

Once you have this understanding of projection, the behavior (and motivation for such behavior) of many religious people becomes somewhat predictable.

A very short post. What do you guys think would have been the ramifications of a Romney win?

My guess is a widespread forced conversion to Mormonism.

I recently stumbled across a blog that demonstrated that rationalists might finally be making some headway into the debate against believers 🙂 There has emerged a new strategy among believers (at least, new to me) that can be seen in this blog post. The blog post is called “Atheists ought to chill out” and it basically is trying to stop the barrage of logic that rationalists are continuously lobbing at irrationalists by saying, “Don’t you have anything better to do with your life? Don’t you feel embarrassed when you continuously disprove us?”

This is quite ironic coming from people who spend hours every Sunday in church. Don’t they have anything better to do?

This blog post in particular was useful because they set up this argument:

I don’t believe in the tooth fairy because I know she doesn’t exist. Therefore, I don’t spend time trying to disprove her. I don’t care if someone believes in her because it doesn’t harm anyone or anything.

I polished up their argument a little, but that’s essentially it.

So, I thought of a great game that we can play!

It’s called, “The Tooth Fairy Doesn’t…” and it goes like this: you state a reason why you feel disproving religion is more important than disproving the tooth fairy. That’s it. I’ll write a few of mine, but I’d love to hear other suggestions! 🙂

The tooth fairy doesn’t strap bombs to her chest and blow herself up in crowded civilian areas.

The tooth fairy doesn’t try to impose her legal system on other cultures (let’s call it Fairya Law) .

The tooth fairy doesn’t issue fatwas calling for the death of cartoonists or writers.

The tooth fairy doesn’t blow up abortion clinics.

The tooth fairy doesn’t knock on my door and try to tell me to believe in her.

The tooth fairy doesn’t influence politics.

The tooth fairy doesn’t try to stop the teaching of evolution in schools.


Being raised in Toronto, Canada, I didn’t realize that there could be any questioning the concept of multiculturalism. It just seemed to work, in Toronto. Now, I have not been to every part of Toronto, but I have been to most parts, and even the neighborhoods most afflicted with poverty — Regent Park and Jane and Finch — are multicultural and there seems to be no serious problem with the mixing of cultures in these areas. In fact, it seems to have made the residents quite tolerant of one another — again, going from the biased perspective I have as an individual and the opinions of my friends who live in these areas.

There are of course predominantly more of one race in certain areas than others, but there is no place in Toronto where a person of any color would step into and feel out of place merely because of the color of their skin.

I didn’t realize until I started traveling that this is not the case around the world. When I first started traveling, I decided to get a hostel in Brixton, England because I figured, London is London. When I stepped out of the subway station in Brixton, I was quite taken aback. I don’t know what the proportion of black people is in Brixton, but for a Torontonian, it was quite surprisingly high. Please, do not confuse this with racism. I would be taken aback by seeing such a high proportion of any minority in an area, regardless of the country. If I were in an Nigerian city and I stumbled upon an area with predominantly whites, I’d be equally taken aback. To me, this seems unnatural. There should be a large degree of intermixing of people in a cosmopolitan city such as London. The reason that this kind of situation was somewhat shocking to me is because there must be a reason why this intermixing is not occurring or at least, not occurring much.

Traveling around Europe, I noticed similar ghettoization. Paris and Rome were two cities that I recollect as having some serious issues.

Why is this? Why is Toronto such a multicultural utopia in comparison to other parts of the world?

I have always believed in the ideals of multiculturalism and as a result, I never really questioned the idea of it even after these experiences abroad. Recently, however, I watched this documentary by Douglas Murray and it has started to change my mind.

I am now starting to believe that in a perfect world, multiculturalism is of course a good thing. People move to a new country with their traditions and beliefs and slowly adopt the traditions and beliefs of their host country. Why would you move to a new country if you don’t like anything about that new country?

Yet, it doesn’t seem to always work this way. Many times nationalism or pride of religion or culture prevents the immigrants from adopting the ways of the host country.

Do not get me wrong, I am not saying this is the only reason for racial division in different cities around the world. In fact, in the Brixton case I mentioned above, I would argue that it was the bad behavior of the English government that caused this ghettoization in the first place. However, times change, and so should demography. But, we are now living in a much more tolerant Europe, yet these divisions remain. I think the reasons are manifold, but I believe that a big reason that segregation exists in these different cities could be an unwillingness to adopt the lifestyle of the host country.

In this case, it is the immigrants who are being racist: quite an ironic twist since racism from the host country would have been the original reason for the establishment of these kinds of ghettos.

In short, I still do believe that multiculturalism is a goal which we should strive for; however, I now realize that it is naive to assume that all people in our society have the same goals of harmony, equality, freedom and so on. Therefore, I think that teaching needs to focus a little less on multiculturalism and a little more on universal human rights. The fact is, our system of government, law and society in the West is something to be proud of. Concessions cannot be made in favor of Sharia or other such primitive conceptions of society. Bluntly, our societal values are superior and we should not be embarrassed or feel guilty about stating this. We feel shame for the ideals of the Enlightenment at our own peril.


A while back, I wrote a post entitled, Hard Questions for the Religious. It received quite an interest from the religious people who read it and responded to it. The reason I posed these questions was the fact that I knew they would require quite a bit of explanation from religious people; yet, these same questions, posed to an atheist, would receive a minimal response. I’ve always hated obfuscation. It’s my opinion that response length and confidence have an inverse relationship when it comes to answering simple questions. In other words, the longer a response, the less confident the respondent is about their answer (of course, there are exceptions to this rule, but I think it applies to all the questions I proposed).

So, I will now answer my own questions (all answers will be in quotation marks to be clear). I will also add a commentary for each question after each response.

1) Do you ever question whether your worldview is correct?

“Yes. That is how I arrived at the world view I have. I am excited in evolving my worldview.”

This question was always answered in the affirmative by the religious people who responded; however, I have difficulty believing this. In my worldview, there is nothing that is impossible. If scientific evidence came out in favor of Allah or Yahweh or any other God, then I would accept it, assuming that scientific evidence had been peer reviewed. Things of this nature, however, are unlikely to be proven true.

On the other hand, while religious people may shift in their perspectives of how their religious beliefs are true, there are fundamental aspects of each particular religion which cannot be questioned. For example, a Christian cannot deny the divinity of Christ. A Muslim cannot accept the divinity of Christ. These are just two examples, but there are many for each religion. Some concepts are unacceptable to the religious.

2) If you pray, why do you do this? Do you believe that God is on your side? Doesn’t all the bad things in your life give you a reason to be skeptical of praying?

“I don’t pray.”

The concept of prayer has many problems. First, if an omnipotent being created the world, why would the request of a non-omnipotent being be useful? Are you smarter than God? Did God not take into consideration what you are requesting? Either God is not omnipotent or prayers are meaningless. Second, what happens when people pray for opposite things that are equally fair? Such as, let our people win this war. Does God take sides in a war? This seems pretty petty. Although, we do have evidence in the Old Testament and the Koran that God does take sides…. so, God is admittedly petty (man, that sounds really offensive. This is the problem with discussing religion. Sorry about the straightforwardness of that last sentence).

3) What do you make of people who believe other religions or other sects of your same religion, often more strongly that you do (ie, enough to fly planes into buildings)?

“They are all believing in something based on faith. I am not.”

The religious response to this tended to be that there are many ways to God or that they accept other people’s opinions. If you read the Abrahamic holy books (I’ve read the Bible and am now 33% of the way through the Koran), you will see that this statement is not actually possible. I cannot speak on behalf of other religions. Perhaps others can enlighten us. Both the Bible and the Koran (the Koran especially) state that there is only one way to heaven and all others will be banished to hell. I’m reading the Koran right now, and if someone reads it honestly, you will notice that the worry about people becoming infidels or not believing in Islam from the beginning takes up maybe a quarter of the book. I’m not exaggerating. It’s unbelievable. I don’t think that this is a good topic for Muslims to dispute because I’ve been reading it on my Kindle and have highlighted every time this is mentioned. I think I’ve run out of storage space 🙂 . So, the nice liberal statement that there are many paths up the mountain to heaven is, to be blunt, a falsehood.

4) Do you notice the parts of life that you do not get to enjoy because of your religion?

“There is nothing in my life that is not permitted except that which my conscience or laws do not permit.”

So, it that way, some things are limited, but these are better for me in the long run. I wouldn’t want to live in a society where anyone could kill me at any moment, so I will gladly give up the freedom to kill others. Also, I have considered the scenario of a cruel billionaire coming to my house and saying: “I’ll give you a million dollars to stab your cat to death.” I truly believe I couldn’t do it. It’s frustrating to know I’m limited in that way, but it’s true. This is also a good thing. It demonstrates that morality is something deep inside of us; something that we are partially born with and is partially nurtured by our upbringing. There’s no real reason I should care about the well-being of an animal that just costs me money. But, that is an overly simplistic way of viewing the world. The fact is, humans need love and affection. This give and take of love is a limiting factor, but also something to be proud of.

5) If you believe in heaven, do you really look forward to the idea of living forever? Think deeply, not superficially, about this. Of course, I don’t want to die, just like you, but living for eternity is a different can of worms altogether. After millions of years, how can anything be interesting anymore?

“I don’t believe in heaven. I don’t want to live forever; however, I would like to live longer than the current human lifespan 🙂 Hurry up medical science!”

Some atheists tell me that they aren’t afraid of death. I doubt this. The only people I believe might not be afraid of death are those who are so deluded to believe that they will receive a great reward after death. I have had the 72 virgins/angels discussion before. Whether or not this is what the Koran is saying (I am starting to think it is true, from what I’ve seen in the Koran so far), is irrelevant. You don’t make young boys blow themselves up by talking about rivers of milk and honey. You tell them they are going to have sex with more women than they could ever hope to attain in this world. If you doubt this, then don’t ever try to be a con artist: you would fail. You have to understand basic human psychology in order to understand suicide bombings. There are also other benefits of suicide bombing jihad. You and your family are given free passes to heaven. If it is not solely a selfish endeavor, this is also the equivalent of a “get rich quick” scam – in this case, get your family into heaven quick scam. I do believe that these people “love death more than [we] love life.”

6) Do you like the fact that God can know everything you think? Do you feel embarrassed about some thoughts you have? (I know I do!)

“I don’t think God or anyone can hear my thoughts. I am happy with this fact.”

There are many things that go through a human’s mind everyday without the intent of the thinker. We do not control everything that happens in our brains. This is getting closer and closer to being an undeniable fact due to the contemporary study of neuroscience. People don’t like to think this. People always want to be in control. However, it is actually quite liberating because you now understand that if you think something very strange, disgusting, or cruel, you can’t be blamed for that. If you act on any of these thoughts, then you must be blamed for that – that is completely different. I will give you a personal example, to the detriment of my character – this is how firmly I believe that I am not responsible for the thoughts that cross my mind. I was using the toilet today, and I suddenly had the curiosity of what eating feces would be like. I disgusted myself, to be honest. Should I feel shame for thinking this? No. I didn’t lift up the toilet seat and act on my passing thought. I am not to blame for this strange and disgusting thought. Think carefully today about every thought that goes through your mind and remember the strange ones. There will be many. In fact, you probably forget about the vast majority of them without realizing it. These thoughts are not a commentary on your personality. Not worrying about these thoughts will lead to a much more stress-free life.

I stumbled across these insults and attacks on the atheist Jessica Ahlquist, recently. In case you don’t know, Ahlquist is the atheist who filed a lawsuit against her school to remove a banner for “School Prayer” because it was unconstitutional. She won, and according to the vitriol spewed by some of these twits, America lost. I thought to myself: I’m supposed to be the Great Antagonizer, but I haven’t really been very antagonistic, as of yet. I also haven’t stumbled across mean ignoramuses since I started writing my blog, either. But now I have and so, I have prepared some responses to these intellectual midgets.

I like this one. First off, if you want to write an insult, it’s probably a good idea to have a basic command of the English language. “you have not win s..t!”? Is that your best attempt at communication? There is something called a past participle in English: look into it. Also, well done: you made a tweet with 18 words, yet you conveyed almost nothing. It’s great that the Internet has allowed us to communicate such important information to one another.

Hmmm… great idea: remove students and teachers that people (all people?) don’t like. By the way, how would this actually work? I don’t like you Jenn Gould. You probably wouldn’t like me. I don’t like anyone like you, and you probably don’t like anyone like me.  I’ll give your little brain a moment to try to consider the ramifications of your original idea and why it doesn’t make sense. Ok, time’s up, your silence, I assume, means you’re confused (probably wouldn’t be the first time). The answer is that everybody would be removed.

Also, you say, “get a life.” She’s doing something to change the world, and you are focused on her life, as evidenced by your tweet, and you’re telling her to get a life? I’m not a psychologist, but it seems like you might be projecting here.

As for the statement about Jessica being “ugly,” I’ll have to say, I bet that there is a reason that you only show a picture of yourself from the nose up. The fact is that it is easier to notice obesity from the nose down. Also, it’s hard to notice how ugly someone is from just the nose up. Ironically, you still look very ugly. That’s an accomplishment in itself.

So, I think I will take your last bit of advice. I don’t like you, physically or mentally, so I will stop looking at you.

Yes. How about that. So, I guess the school will be empty then. You probably don’t believe in Thor or Vishnu or innumerable other Gods. You are an atheist to those religions. No school for you! Although for some reason, it doesn’t seem like school was having any positive impact on you anyway.

Wow, brilliant. This is your solution to things that you can’t comprehend. Well done.

Again, another clever tweet. “I’ll drop anchor on her face” is close to a decent sentence. Words like “a” and “an” are not necessary for understanding a statement, but they convey intelligence. When a non-native speaker doesn’t use them or uses them improperly it is excusable. However, I have a feeling Zach is not a non-native speaker. When you don’t use these words, you do sound like an imbecile. Just giving you a heads up.

You’re going to throw things at her? Well, bravo. By the way, what a stupid name.

Stupid people cannot take over the world. Sorry.

I’ve never met an atheist who told me that they think they will become a tree. That’s about the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard. Further, it’s not even your joke. I heard a comedian use this joke before. So, kudos on plagiarizing a lame joke.

Then… you’re a coward. If you are really passionate about something, do something with your life. You might gain notoriety for punching an important person in the face. You might become the Jack Ruby of retards. But, alas, you’re too cowardly for that. That’s too bad.

Not surprisingly, overall, the intelligence level of these goons was quite low. I don’t know what a person who isn’t smart is thinking when they start broadcasting their thoughts across the Internet. Do they think it will never come back to harm them? Are they not worried that someone in their family might see their hateful, ignorant and just plain stupid comments? What about their future employers? These people might get a laugh now, but I actually kind of pity their future prospects.

Many people worry about how much money their country “gives away” to other countries through foreign aid.

Why do we throw away our money like this?

In short, it is not throwing away money.

After World War II Europe and Japan were decimated and America arose as the predominant superpower (Russia being somewhat further behind); mostly due to the war-time economic boom (building munitions and vehicles) and the fact that the only part of their landmass that was damaged was Pearl Harbor.

So, an economic layman might think, why not just sit back as the superpower and enjoy the benefits? The problem is that international trade is a necessity in the modern world. The days of mercantilism were over and America needed countries to provide cheap products and raw materials to trade.

The Marshall Plan was perhaps one of the greatest economic decisions by the White House. The amount of money “wasted” was in the tens of billions. Yet, this was not charity.

The end result of the Marshall Plan was the creation of the greatest economies in Europe and Asia: Germany and Japan, respectively. People know that products from Japan are now top or near top quality; however, people forget that products from Japan were at one time very cheap and not the greatest quality. As a country develops, it can acquire more technology and invest more in research and development and thus improve the quality of its products. This has happened with both Germany and Japan since WWII.

After the Korean War, the same situation happened. I remember reading a book about Korean history, and I can’t remember the exact numbers, but I remember the comparison of how much money was pumped into South Korea yearly, because it was shocking. The amount of money given to South Korea after the Korean war yearly was almost as much as was invested in the entire American South yearly. I was blown away by that figure, but I suppose that the American economists had the foresight to realize that this was a good investment. Accordingly, the South Korean “miracle” was created (heavy quotes because pumping that much money into such a small and, at that time, poor country and having incredible results is not exactly a miracle as much as an obvious result).

Now, there are other ways that America spends its foreign aid too. Countries such as Pakistan and Egypt receive foreign aid, but this is not an investment in their development, per se. It is an investment in their stability and cooperation with the United States (although, granted, they are not always cooperative). This foreign aid, then, is a kind of diplomacy which is necessary for a country that is the global hegemon to invest in. Also, keep in mind that this amount of foreign aid pales in comparison to the aforementioned foreign aid contributions to Japan, Germany or Korea.

Is there a reason that powerful governments don’t emphasize this point more clearly? Probably. What sounds better: your country is donating money to help another country or that your country is giving money to another country not because it cares about that country but in its own self interest to create and maintain trading partners? Of course the former sounds nicer, and it is the assumption by most people; however, it is just not true.

So, is foreign aid a waste of money? Only if you think investing in the future is a waste of money.


Observations - From the sharp end

Questionable Motives

What is the right question?

The Havers of a Questioning Mind

All men are born with a nose and ten fingers, but no one was born with a knowledge of God. -Voltaire

nerd on the bridge

A Literary Paradox

Lights on the Moon

what's real & what's not


Meat sack with thoughts.

The Southern Rationalist

Voices of Rationality and Skepticism from the Southern US

Endless Erring

Stumbling along a Druid path

God Shmod

The one true God of Atheism.

Pretentious Ape

a humanist blog

Confessions of a Disquisitive Writer

Blogging my thoughts to the world

The More I Learn the More I Wonder

Rambles and brambles in the garden of my mind

Little Duckies

Parenting, polyticks, and the everyday busyness of an American-born mom in Israel.

Illusions and Delusions

Education is the key



Web-ling's World

The World as I See It

Heightened Senses

Hello. I'm Imraan. This is the only thing I own outright; I write from time to time, in the hopes that free-association might save a trip to a sanatorium.